DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
 NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
                     DISCHARGE REVIEW
                   DECISIONAL DOCUMENT

 ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD02-00127

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 011019, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing discharge review before a traveling panel closest to Chicago, IL.  The applicant designated a private representative on the DD Form 293. Representative did not respond to the Board’s letter or submit issues.  In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, she was informed the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel, all hearings are held in the Washington, DC area.  The NDRB also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020701.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: UNCHARACTERIZED/ ENTRY LEVEL PERFORMANCE AND CONDUCT, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6205.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  I, (applicant) respectfully request review and upgrade of my Uncharacterized Discharge from the United States Marine Corps.  You see my father, R_ D. S_, Sr., a Marine (who served from December, 1974 to May, 1992), raised me.  As my father's career progressed, I lived such places as MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina and NAS Whidbey Island Washington.  All of my life I looked up to my father.  After my father had left the Service and relocated the family to Chicago, I decided that when I graduated from High School I would follow in his footsteps.  He and I went down to the Recruiters Office and I signed up.  I went through the various testing and physical examinations and passed with flying colors.  During every pool function my stamina increased and I got to the point that I knew I was ready for the Marine Corps challenge.  In June of 1999, I left for Recruit . Training at MCRD Parris Island, South Carolina.  It was while in Boot Camp that I began to have problems with my ankles.  They began to swell eventually getting to the point that just wearing combat boots was almost unbearable.  I did my very best and persevered through being dropped to Physical Conditioning / Medical Rehab Platoon.  When I went to the Dispensary, the Medical Personnel could neither explain why the swelling was happening, nor why it would give me such discomfort.  They decided that it had to be Dependent Edema (a term used for swelling in the limbs of pregnant women.  This diagnosis was to me both ridiculous and devastating because at the time I was still a virgin.  This, along with the allegations of some of the Drill Instructors that I wasn't giving it my all, and that I refused to cross the "Pain Threshold" did nothing to facilitate my recovery from this condition.  Although displaying a few character liabilities (coincidentally during my physical setbacks), my Drill Instructors have attested that I improved greatly (See Exhibit A).  It was, however, decided by my superiors that I be discharged for "Incapability-Dependent Edema both legs".  This was the most devastating news of all, because as I stated earlier, my goal was to follow in the tradition started by my father, and become a U.S. Marine.  I performed at my very best, delivering 110% in every way, except when my ankle problem prevented such.  I did not have this condition before entering the Marine Corps.  Why then was my discharge being listed as uncharacterized?  I was released from active duty in November of 1999; my rank at the time of separation was Private First Class (paygradeE-2).  Given the information and facts that I described in the above paragraph, I respectfully request that my release from active duty please be upgraded to an Honorable Discharge.  Thank you for taking the time to read this and consider my request.

Sincerely,

Documentation

In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:

Copy of DD Form 214
Recruit Information Card (3 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		980618 - 990620	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  990621		Date of Discharge:  991109

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:  00  04  19
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  5

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  69

Highest Rank:  PFC

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  NMA			Conduct:  NMA

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

UNCHARACTERIZED/ENTRY LEVEL PERFORMANCE AND CONDUCT, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6205.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

991008:	Branch Medical Clinic, Parris Island, SC:  19 year old female with complaint of both legs swollen/discolored ankles for 2 months.  Recruit  reports left lower leg has always been larger than right lower leg.  Reports swelling fluctuates over time.  Reports tightness in calf area (B), no pain.  Has been seen numerous times at BMC with negative work up.  Denies fever, chills, night sweats, shortness of breath or chest pain.  Has been in training since 25 Sep, after MRP 6 weeks for hip strain and 6 weeks in PCP.
	A/P:  (B) lower leg edema (chronic).  Will try limit of training.  Use TED Hoses, Full duty, Return on 18 Oct 99 or sooner if necessary. 

991018:	Branch Medical Clinic, Parris Island, SC:  Single 19 year old female complains of lower leg edema. Pt states that she has had pain since she entered back to training.  Pt states that it is different than when in MRP due to now she has pain.
	A/P:  Dependent edema.  1 - full duty.

991022:	Branch Medical Clinic, Parris Island, SC:  19 year old female with history of dependent edema of chronic nature.  Has had complete workup.  Complains of pain in both legs for 2 weeks.  Report pain along both ankle capsules.  Review of chart demonstrates ankle pain/swelling for more than 4 months.  Recruit reports that her left leg has always been larger than her right due to swelling.  
	Assessment:  Chronic dependent (B) by edema. 

991026:	Branch Medical Clinic, Parris Island, SC:  Recommended recruit be placed on light duty pending separation.  Medical reason for separation - Dependent Edema, Both Legs.  Type of separation recommended - medical incapable.

991029:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for entry level discharge (uncharacterized) by reason of entry level performance and conduct as evidenced by incapability due to dependent edema both legs.

991029:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

991104:	Commanding officer recommended entry level separation by reason of entry level performance and conduct  due to incapability - dependent edema both legs.  

991104:	GCMCA [CG, MCRD/Eastern Recruiting Region, Parris Island] approved and directed the applicant's discharge with a discharge date of 9 Nov 1999.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 991109 with an entry level separation (uncharacterized) due to entry level performance and conduct (A).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B).  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).

Issue 1.  The Board does not consider the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s stated condition and implied incorrect diagnosis to be of sufficient nature to warrant an upgrade to her characterization of service.  By regulation, members discharged within the first 180 days of enlistment are given characterization of service as “Entry Level Separation” unless there were unusual circumstances regarding performance or conduct which would merit an “honorable” characterization.  The applicant’s service record did not contain any unusual circumstances during her less than five months in the military to warrant a change of discharge to “honorable.”

Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or injustice occurred during the applicant’s enlistment.  Additionally, there is no law, or regulation, which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time, or good conduct in civilian life, subsequent to leaving the service.  Relief denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E, effective 950818), paragraph 6205, ENTRY LEVEL PERFORMANCE AND CONDUCT.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.  

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.

PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT

If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional document requirements of DoD Directive 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Directive.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint.  The complaint procedure does not permit a challenge of the merits of the decision; it is designed solely to ensure that the decisional documents meet applicable requirements for clarity and responsiveness.  You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “afls10.jag.af.mil”.  
 
The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:

		Naval Council of Personnel Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023