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

 ex-Pvt, USMC
Docket No. MD02-00471

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020305, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  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 021105.  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:  UNCHARACTERIZED/ FRAUDULENT ENTRY INTO MILITARY SERVICE, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6204.3.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  It was improper to give the reason for my separation as "Defective Enlistment & Induction - Fraudulent Enlistment" with Separation Code JDA1. Before I signed the one year delayed entry; I discussed with my recruiter, Sgt. W_ (Midland/Odessa, TX) that I was being treated for ADHD by Dr. B_ H_.  I was taking adderall prescribed by Dr. H_, and that I had taken Ritalin in the 3rd and 4th grade. Throughout the year of delayed entry service I told my new recruiters, S.Sgt. R_ (Midland/Odessa, TX) and G. Sgt. M_ (Midland/Odessa, TX) that I was being treated for ADHD by Dr. H_.  They told me that it would be okay if I was not taking medication on my enlistment date in June 2000, and that I should not tell anyone else unless specifically asked about ADHD, Ritalin, Adderall, or Dr. H_. Both Sgt W_ and S.Sgt R_ told me to stop taking adderall, and stop seeing Dr. H_.  I stopped seeing Dr. H_ and stopped taking adderall in December 1999. I have never attempted suicide. Not at age 14, nor at any other time.

Documentation

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

Statement from Applicant's father dated December 27, 2001
Statement from Applicant's mother dated December 27, 2001
Statement from doctor dated December 12, 2001
Copy of Applicant's DD Form 214 (Member 1 and 4)
Nine pages from Applicant's service record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		990730 - 000625	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  000626		Date of Discharge:  001108

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  04  13
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  44

Highest Rank:  Pvt

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  NMF*			Conduct:  NMF

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

*No Marks Found in the service record.

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

UNCHARACTERIZED/FRAUDULENT ENTRY INTO MILITARY SERVICE, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6204.3.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

001027:	Medical evaluation by Branch Medical Clinic:

	AXIS I: adjustment disorder with depressed mood.

Recommended ELS. 

001101:	Counseled concerning his ELS from the United States Marine Corps due to fraud.

001101:	Commanding Officer recommended an uncharacterized discharge by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to a fraudulent entry into the U.S. Marine Corps.  The factual basis for this recommendation was due to a pre-service adjustment disorder.  Commanding Officer’s comments: SNR is a Bn Ref for being diagnosed w/adjustment disorder.  SNR has disclosed to MHU & RLS (11/02) of prior suicide attempt at age 14, SNR did not disclose this info to MEPS/RLS; SNR states he told his recruiter.  SNR has also disclosed previous drug use; at age 8 SNR was taking Ridlin, until age 13 he changed to Addreal (a stronger form of Ridlin) until age 16.  SNR was seeing a psychologist for 8 years 1x every 3 mths. All of the above was not disclosed prior to enlistment.  Recommend ELS.

001102:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for an uncharacterized discharge by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to a fraudulent entry into the U.S. Marine Corps.

001102:	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.

001107:	GCMCA [Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego, CA] directed the Applicant's uncharacterized discharge by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to a fraudulent entry into the U.S. Marine Corps.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant received an uncharacterized discharged on 001108 by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to a fraudulent entry (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.  By regulation, members discharged within the first 180 days of enlistment are given characterization of service as “uncharacterized” 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 his less than five months in the military to warrant a change of discharge.  With respect to non-service related administrative matters, an uncharacterized separation is considered the equivalent of an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) characterization.  Relief is therefore denied.

No narrative reason more clearly describes the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s processing for administrative separation other than fraudulent entry.  The Applicant stated to medical authorities on 001023 that he had superficially cut his left wrist at age 14 due to the breakup with his girlfriend at the time.  The Applicant checked “No” on Block 21 of Standard Form 86, and checked “No” on Block 16, Standard Form 93, regarding his history of mental health.  The Applicant’s claim that his recruiters told him to lie does not mitigate his failure to properly report the treatment for mental health related conditions he received prior to entry in the Marine Corps.  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.  Relief not warranted.

The Applicant 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.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.  

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 Aug 95 until present, paragraph 6204, DEFECTIVE ENLISTMENT AND INDUCTION.

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 “afls14.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