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

 ex-LCpl, USMC
Docket No. MD03-01122

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030612.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.  Subsequent to the application, the Applicant obtained representation by the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040812.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character 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 stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “I WAS VERY YOUNG AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT WHICH CAUSED ME TO GET THE GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) DISCHARGE.  I AM NOW MORE MATURE AND WOULD LIKE TO GET MY DISCHARGE UPGRADED SO THAT I MAY ATTEND SCHOOL AND IMPROVE MY LIFE.”

Additional issues submitted by Applicant’s representative (Veterans of Foreign Wars):

2.  “Applicant indicated above requested that Veterans of Foreign Wars act as counsel concerning his application.  His records were reviewed on 20040714 and the following comments are hereby submitted.

We contend an upgraded discharge is warranted in accordance with all regulations governing PROPRIETY.  The marine was discharged with PRO/CON scores of 4.2 and 4.3.  We find this to be an acceptable scores to warrant an honorable discharge.  This marine was observed as a non-performer and supporting medical opinions were given by unqualified reporting seniors.  He was a candidate for the Infrantry squad leader course and within months he is incompetent.  It is our contention the discharge is inappropriate for the record.

We refer this case to the Board for their careful and compassionate consideration and reserve comments for the scheduled hearing.”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		990722 - 000718	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  000719		Date of Discharge:  021219

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  05  01
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  20			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  11			AFQT:  44

Highest Rank:  LCpl

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.3 (5)			Conduct:  4.3 (5)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, SSDR

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:

011101:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 113:
Specification: Sleep on post on 1700, 011015.
Awarded forfeiture of $283.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duties for 14 days.  Not appealed.

020408:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Lack of responsibility and poor judgment for driving without license, insurance, or valid plates.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

020906:	Counseled for non-recommendation for Corporal due to lack of leadership traits, initiative, motivation, being late to formation of ten and maturity level.

021011:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Lack of responsibility and poor judgment for failure to report to appointed place of duty by appropriate time and refusal to train.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

021016:	Medical evaluation by a military psychiatrist 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: Personality disorder, not otherwise specified, with borderline features.

021029:	Platoon Commander’s letter: [Over the last four months I can assess LCpl B_’s performance as below average.  He has a documented series of UA’s in the last month and SNM has shown no initiative and no motivation at all over the last four months.]

021105:	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.

021105:	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.

021105:	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 psychological evaluation.  The factual basis for this recommendation was your diagnosis with a personality disorder, not otherwise specified, with borderline features.  Commanding Officer’s comments: [LCpl (Applicant) is unable to fulfill his duties as a Marine as a result of his personality disorder.]

021216:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

021216:	GCMCA [Commanding General, 2d Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force] 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 awarded a General (under honorable conditions) discharge on 20021219 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).

Issue 1.  The Applicant contends that his problems in the Marine Corps can be attributed to being "very young".  While he may feel that his immaturity was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record clearly reflects his willful misconduct.  The evidence of record did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  Relief denied.

The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Navy Discharge Review Board.  There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veterans' benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.  Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.  

Issue 2.  A General discharge 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 nonjudicial punishment proceedings for a violation of Article 113 of the UCMJ for sleeping on post.  The Applicant was counseled on three separate occasions not related to his infraction adjudicated at NJP.  The Applicant’s platoon commander described his performance as below average for a series of four months and cited a series of unauthorized absences.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the Marine Corps and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service.  Relief is not warranted.

The Applicant’s counsel contends that “supporting medical opinions were given by unqualified reporting seniors.”  The record shows that Marines in the Applicant’s chain of command submitted non-medical assessment letters that cited the Applicant’s poor performance and the Applicant’s diagnosis of personality disorder by competent medical authority on 16 October 2002.  The evidence reviewed did not persuade the Board that this diagnosis and subsequent administrative separation was improper or inequitable.  Relief denied.

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.  The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to his discharge at that time.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Paragraph 6203, CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 02 Sep 01 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 “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