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

 ex-Pvt, USMC
Docket No. MD02-00784

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020514, 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 designate a representative on the DD Form 293. 

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 030206.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety but did discern an inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall change.  The discharge shall change to: HONORABLE/CONDITION NOT A PHYSICAL OR MENTAL DISABILITY, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6203.2.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1. PREXISTING EAR/HEARING DISABILITY - GENERAL DISCHARGE

When I had my pre-service exam at Des Plaines, IL MEPS Center, the examining physician was informed of the problems with my ears.  I was accepted into the Marine Corps anyway.  (I do not have any of my military medical records but the above noted information should be included in those records).
I am completely at a los as to why I received a General discharge instead of an Honorable Discharge.  I did whatever was expected of me and during the course of my one year tenure in the Marine Corps, I received a promotion on October 1, 2000 to Private First Class.  At my exit exam, I was told by the physician that I never should have been accepted into the military due to my condition.  None-the-less, I was accepted.  
It is my sincere feeling I did not deserve anything less than an honorable discharge and am respectfully requesting that my discharge be upgraded to honorable.
In addition, my name is spelled incorrectly on the discharge.  It should read R.  On dd214 it notes in Line Item 11  00 Years, 00 Months.  That is also incorrect.  Please read Line Item 12 which shows 1 Year and 1 Month.  Lite Item 15a notes that I did not contribute to Post-Vietnam Educational Assistance Program.  This is also incorrect as I contributed more than $600 to the Montgomery GI Bill.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of my request for an upgrade of discharge and other corrections to my DD214.
Sincerely,

Documentation

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

Appointment to Private First Class dtd 1 Oct 2000
Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		991223 - 010525	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  000412		Date of Discharge:  010525

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:  01  01  14		Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12*		AFQT:  Not available

Highest Rank:  PFC

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.5 (3)		Conduct:  4.5 (3)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  Rifle Expert Badge

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

*Cannot verify.

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/CONDITION NOT A PHYSICAL OR MENTAL DISABILITY, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6203.2.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

0000518:	Branch Medical Clinic, MCRD, San Diego:  19 year old male with complaint of left ear has muffled sounds.  Dry cough at night and nasal congestion.  No known allergies.  Assessment:  URI.
Plan:  1 day SIQ.  Educated on condition, treatment & Follow Up, given meds - R-DM, Sudafed, Tylenol.

000911:	Naval Hospital Camp Pendleton:  19 year old with 5 months service. 
	Assessment:  Longstanding eustachian tube dysfunction with recurrent otitis media, worse left ear, disqualifying for military service - existed prior to enlistment.  Should not have been enlisted.
	Diagnosis:  1) Recurrent otitis media - bilateral, left worse than right; 2) chronic bilateral eustachian tube dysfunction; 3) conductive hearing loss - bilateral; 4) retracted tympanic membranes bilateral.
	All conditions disqualifying.  All contributory existed prior to enlistment, not aggravated by service.  
	Recommendation:  Administrative separation from service.

000914	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct [diagnosed with a Bilateral Eustachian Tube Dysfunction that hinders ability to train]. Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.  

000919:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of convenience of the government for a physical condition not a disability.

000919:	Applicant advised of his 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.

000919:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of convenience of the government for a condition not a physical or mental disability.  The factual basis for this recommendation was the result of numerous medical complaints to medical authorities regarding his ear and subsequent diagnosis by medical authorities as having ear drum infections.  Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim):  "Private First Class C_ (Applicant) was counseled on 14 September 2000 in accordance with the requirements of MARCORSEPMAN para. 6105 but failed to correct his deficiency."

010323:	Administrative Discharge package resubmitted due to the original being misplaced/lost between SOI Legal and NCM Adjutant.

010425:	GCMCA [CG, MCB, Camp Pendleton] directed the Applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general) for the convenience of the Government due to a physical condition not a disability - bilateral eustachian tube dysfunction.
PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 010525 under honorable conditions (general) by reason of convenience of the government due to condition not a physical or mental disability (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 but not equitable (C and D).

Issue 1.  The Board found that in the Applicant’s case, the characterization of service should have been the “type warranted by service record.”  A review of Applicant’s records indicated an honorable discharge was warranted.  Applicant’s performance and behavior marks were above the standard required for an honorable discharge and there was no adverse information that would have warranted a less favorable characterization.  Therefore, relief is granted.

Based upon the information available for review, the Board recommended that corrections be made to the Applicant’s DD Form 214 concerning his name, rank and narrative reason for separation (see page 1 above).  The Applicant was not awarded a Primary MOS, therefore no change to Block 11 of the DD Form 214 is recommended.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

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

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