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

 ex-Pvt, USMC
Docket No. MD02-00167

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 011210, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to administrative.  The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020715.  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 and narrative reason of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PERSONALITY DISORDER, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6203.3

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  I would first like to thank you for your time and consideration in reviewing this letter and attachments.

I request that you consider the following information for a change in my discharge status to "Honorable", versus "General, Under Honorable Conditions".

I believe that my case merits greater review because I was an outstanding Marine holding high proficiency and conduct marks and being an exceptional achiever in my academics and training (See attachments A 2-6).  During my career, I had several minor incidents in which started a downward spiral effect.  I was a young and immature Marine trying to grow up as fast as I could.

The following forms are incorrect and unfair in their entirety. (Attachment A 7, Disciplinary Report; Attachment A 8, Disciplinary Report; A 9, Disciplinary Report; A 10, Disciplinary Report; A 11, Disciplinary Report).

1.  Note the dates on the form (Attachment A 7, Disciplinary Report), issued 03 June 1996.  The dates of the incidents are 30 May 1996, 29 April 1996, and 30 April 1996.  The actual date of the Article 92, was 27 April 1996 due to a civilian motor vehicle investigation that was later dismissed in a court of law.  These incidents were over a month old and had had been addressed by the Commanding Officer of Ammunition Company, Captain B_.  The issuing NCO was charging me with a matter that had already been issued with.  Issued to Commanding Officer, 1st Supply Battalion via Commanding Officer, Ammunition Company.

2.  Note the dates on the form (Attachment A 8, Disciplinary Report), issued 03 June 1996.  The date of the incident is 04 June 1996.  This is an obvious error, again issued by the same NCO as A 7 on the same date.  Issued to Commanding Officer, 1st Supply Battalion via Commanding Officer, Ammunition Company.

3.  Note the dates on the form (Attachment A 9, Disciplinary Report), issued 05 June 1996.  The date of the incident is the same.  The same NCO as A 7 and A 8 signed as a witness to this event.  Issued to Commanding Officer, 1st Supply Battalion via Commanding Officer, Ammunition Company.

4.  Note the dates on the form (Attachment A 10, Disciplinary Report), issued 06 June 1996.  The date of the incident is the same.  Again issued by the same NCO as A 7, A 8, and A 9. This NCO attempted to charge me with disobeying a lawful order, then was crossed out.  Issued to Commanding Officer, 1st Supply Battalion via Commanding Officer, Ammunition Company.

5.  Note the dates on the form (Attachment A 11, Disciplinary Report), issued 07 June 1996.  The date of the incident is the same.  Again issued by the same NCO as A 7, A 8, A 9, and A 10.  Issued to Commanding Officer, 1st Supply Battalion via Commanding Officer, Ammunition Company.

On all of the above stated attachments, I was on medical light duty issued by 1st Maintenance Battalion BAS.  I was advised not to participate in any physical activity, documented in my medical records.  This information was given to my command staff and the same NCO, in which issued the above stated attachments.  It is unknown to me why this NCO acted in the manner in which he did.  These charges were sent to the Battalion Commander for action that is normally dealt with by the Commanding Office, Ammunition Company.  I learned of these charges 01 July 1996, the same time that I was advised of an NJP before the Commanding Officer of 1st Supply Battalion for these charges.  I then became clinically depressed after attempting to deal with this situation and three deaths in my family occurring just prior to this situation.

After the NJP, I was transferred to a different Company, awaiting discharge.  There I was appointed as Assistant BEQ Manager (Attachment A 12) and performed as excellent as possible.

These charges and situation were unfair and unjust.  I was discharged for a "Personality Disorder", which does not concur with my conduct previous to these incidents or after.

After I was discharged from the Marine Corps, I returned home and started a new life as a civilian.  I went to the Pikes Peak Regional Law Enforcement Academy, in which I was appointed Cadet Commander.  I graduated from the academy and achieved a Certification with the Colorado Peace Officers Standards and Training (Attachments B 3; E 2).  I was also placed on the College Deans list for achieving a 4.0 G.P.A. (Attachments B 1-2).  I am now a faithful and dedicated husband and father to my wife and daughters.

Since 1999, I have been a Deputy Sheriff with the Park County Sheriff's Office.  I am now a senior Deputy with this office.  I have received several letters of commendation and letters of recognition for my performance and services from several different agencies and communities. (Attachments E 1-8).  I have also attended many classes and training to better myself, further my career, and to assist my community in every way possible. (Attachments B 1-7; C 1-2; D 1-6)

I am submitting this application after proving my loyalty and allegiance to my community, State of Colorado, and to the Unites States of America. (Attachments B 1-7, C 1-2, D 1-6, E 1-8) I have also requested a change in my reenlistment code with the Board for Correction of Naval Records.

I thank you for your time and consideration.  Please advise what my further instructions are.  Upon change of my discharge, it is my sincere desire to rejoin the United States Marine Corps.  I am certain that I can be a valuable asset to the United States Marine Corps.  Very Respectfully, 

Documentation

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

United States Marine Corps Documents
Copy of DD Form 214
Copy of US Marine Corps High Shooter Award Certificate dated November 17, 1995
Copy of US Marine Corps High Shooter Award letter dated November 17, 1995
Copy of US Marine Corps School of Infantry - Marine Combat Training Certificate dated January 5, 1996
Copy of DD Form 216 MC - Appointment to Private First Class dated February 1, 1996
Copy of US Army Ordinance Certificate dated February 16, 1996
Copy of disciplinary report dated June 03, 1996
Copy of disciplinary report dated June 03, 1996
Copy of disciplinary Report dated June 05, 1996
Copy of disciplinary Report dated June 06, 1996
Copy of disciplinary Report dated June 07, 1996
Copy of letter of recommendation from Corporal A. K. J_, USMC

Schooling Documents
Copy of Pikes Peak Community College 1998 Report Card
Copy of Pikes Peak Community College 1999 Report Card
Copy of Pikes Peak Community College - Pikes Peak Regional Law Enforcement Academy Graduation Certificate dated March 19, 1999
Copy of Pikes Peak Regional Law Enforcement Academy Firearms Training Certificate dated March 19, 1999
Copy of Pikes Peak Regional Law Enforcement Academy Law Enforcement Driving Certificate dated March 19, 1999
Copy of Pikes Peak Regional Law Enforcement Academy Arrest Control / Defensive Tactics Certificate dated March 19, 1999
Copy of Pikes Peak Regional Law Enforcement Academy First Responder Certificate dated February 20, 1999

State Of Colorado Documents
Peace Officer Standards And Training Certificate # B-5445 dated March 18, 1999
Colorado Department of Public Health Intoxilyzer Certificate dated December 20, 1999
Law Enforcement Documents
Copy of PPCT Defensive Tactics System Basic Certificate dated April 8 - 11, 2000
Copy of PPCT Re-Certification Certificate dated February 28, 2001
Copy of Specialty Impact Munitions Certificate dated May 1, 2001
Copy of O.C. Pepper Spray Certificate dated October 16, 1999
Copy of Radar Certificate dated May 24, 2000
Copy of Defensive Handgun; Introduction to Urban Rifle and Shotgun Certificate Advanced/Instructor Level dated June 24, 1999

Awards/Letters
Copy of Park County Sheriff's Office Letter of Commendation, undated
Copy of Park County Sheriffs Officer Letter of Recognition dated September 28, 1999
Copy of Fairplay Police Department Letter of Commendation (2 pages) dated September 6, 2001
Copy of Fairplay Police Department Letter of Recognition dated July 19, 2000
Copy of Fairplay Police Department Letter of Recognition dated August 30, 2000
Copy of Park County Senior Coalition Utter of Recognition dated January 14, 2001
Copy of Citizen "Thank You" Letter dated October 6, 1999
Copy of Park County Deputy Sheriff R_; Letter of Recommendation dated October 27, 2001
Letter from applicant dated December 23, 2001
Letter from Park County Sheriff's Office dated December 31, 2001
Letter of recommendation dated November 30, 2001
Copy of Field Training Officer Seminar certificate dated November 30, 2001
Copy of Operator's Training Course certificate dated October 17, 2001
Copy of certificate of attendance dated September 28 - 29, 2001
Letter from applicant dated April 15, 2002 (2 copies)
Letter of recommendation dated January 9, 2002
Letter to applicant from Undersheriff, Park County Sheriff's Officer dated January 8, 2002 (2 copies)
Copy of certificate dated April 8-12, 2002 (2 copies)
Copy of certificate dated September 11-13, 2001 (2 copies)
Copy of NAFTO membership certificate (2 copies)
Copy of psychological evaluation dated May 3, 1999 (9 pages)
Copy of Undergraduate Academic Record from Pikes Peak Community College
	Letter from applicant dated May 28, 2002
Letter from applicant dated June 25, 2002

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		941104 - 950827	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  950828		Date of Discharge:  960731

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  11  04
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  75

Highest Rank:  PFC

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.3 (2)			Conduct:  4.3 (2)

Military Decorations:  Rifle Expert Badge

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PERSONALITY DISORDER, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6203.3.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

960427:	Applicant cited for driving under the influence by civil authorities.  Civil charges pending.

960626:	Medical evaluation by the mental health department concluded that the applicant’s personality disorder was so severe that his ability to function effectively in the military environment was significantly impaired.

	AXIS I: Borderline Personality Disorder.

960702:	BN NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:
Specification 1: Failure to go at the time prescribed to Building 43602 at 0645, 30May96.
Specification 2: Failure to go at the time prescribed to Building 43950 at 0545, 5Jun96.
Specification 3: Failure to go at the time prescribed to Building 43502 at 0600, 6Jun96.
Specification 4: Failure to go at the time prescribed to Bn formation at 0630, 7Jun96.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 90:
Specification: Willfully disobey Captain's command to refrain from consuming alcoholic beverages.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 134:
Specification: Wrongfully communicate a threat to LCpl by saying to him "You don't know who you're dealing with.  I'll kick your ass." on 0700, 3Jun96.
Awarded forfeiture of $437.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duties for 45 days, reduction to Pvt.  Not appealed.

960709:	Alcohol abuse evaluation: Applicant disclosed DUI - 3 times.  Impression: Alcohol abuse.  Recommended administrative separation processing.

960716:	Applicant refused treatment for addiction.

960716:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under honorable conditions (general) for the convenience of the government due to a personality disorder, based upon a diagnosed personality disorder as evidenced by mental health department.

960717:	Applicant advised of rights and having consulted 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.

960719:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general) for the convenience of the government due to a personality disorder, based upon a diagnosed personality disorder as evidenced by the mental health department.  The factual basis for this recommendation was the medical officer's diagnosis, which concludes that the disorder is so severe that the ability to function effectively in a military environment is significantly impaired. 

960725:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

960725:	GCMCA [Commanding General, 1st Force Service Support Group] directed the applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general) for convenience of the government due to a personality disorder.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 960731 general (under honorable conditions) for convenience of the government due to a personality disorder (A and B).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C).  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 (D and E).

Issues 1-5.  With the exception of his demonstrated marksmanship skills, the Board found little to support the applicant’s assertion that he was an outstanding Marine.  The applicant’s proficiency and conduct marks, while sufficient for an honorable characterization of service, are considered average to below average relative to all Marines of his grade.  The Board disagrees with the applicant’s assertion that his overall service record warrants an honorable discharge.  When a Marine’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.  A characterization of service of under honorable conditions (general) is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member's military record.  The applicant’s service was marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) with several specifications.  Counseled on alcohol abuse, applicant refused treatment.  The record is devoid of evidence that the applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  The applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service.  An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate.  It must be noted that most Marines serve honorably and well and therefore earn honorable discharges.   In fairness to those Marines, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving Marines receive no higher characterization than is due.  Relief denied.  

The applicant submitted nothing in his issues and supporting documentation that demonstrates an inequity or impropriety concerning his non-judicial punishment received on 960702.  The Board found his receipt of battalion level NJP was proper and equitable. The Board noted that the applicant did not appeal his NJP, and that a limited duty status does not preclude a Marine from reporting to a certain area at a specified time, or excuse unauthorized alcoholic consumption and communicating threats.  Relief denied.
 
The Board does not consider the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s stated condition during his tour of active duty and implied incorrect diagnosis to be of sufficient nature to warrant an upgrade to his characterization of service.  On 960626 a medical evaluation by the mental health department concluded that the applicant’s personality disorder was so severe that his ability to function effectively in the military environment was significantly impaired.  No other narrative reason more clearly describes the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s processing for administrative separation.  The applicant’s post-service accomplishments do not invalidate the applicant’s condition while on active duty in 1996.  Relief denied.

Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Naval Service or any other branch of the Armed Forces.  Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment.  A request for waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.  Relief is therefore denied.

The applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  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.  However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review.  Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than Honorable discharge.  Documentation of community service and proof of his not using drugs and alcohol are examples of verifiable documents that should have been provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct.  The applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to warrant an upgrade to his discharge.  He is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge.  The applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.  Legal representation at a personal appearance hearing is highly recommended but not required.  Relief denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Paragraph 6203, CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 Aug 95 until Present.

B.  Table 6-1, Guide for Characterization of Service, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 Aug 95 until Present.

C.  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.  

D.  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.

E.  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