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

 ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD05-00603

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050223.  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 listed a legal representative as the representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20050615.  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: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.2.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Issues submitted by Applicant and representative (legal representative):

1.  “The discharge is improper because the Applicant was diagnosed with chronic schizophrenia, Paranoid Type soon after his discharge from the Marine Corps.  See Exhibit 2, Page 1, Sentence 2.  The supporting medical documentation (Ex. 2) shows several descriptors of Applicant’s behavior that is indicative of Schizophrenia.  This defined behavior was at the heart of the Applicant’s problems while serving in the Marine Corps.  See Ex. 5, Pgs 7-13.  At the time of his enlistment, Applicant had no knowledge of this ailment.  During his initial service in the Corps, he was a stellar Marine.  See Exh. 5, Pgs 1-6, 14-15.  Then as the schizophrenia took hold, his performance significantly dropped.   Also, the Admin Sep Board was conducted in a very voile and unfair manner.  Several pieces of evidence and witnesses the Applicant wanted to submit were excluded.  See Ex. 4, Page 9.  The Applicant’s superiors just wanted him out. (Ex. 4) When they were successful that is when it was discovered that Applicant suffered from chronic paranoid schizophrenia.  The Applicant deserved a fair and impartial board and a medical review should have been conducted.  Applicant could not have controlled the psychological ailment that overtook him during his service.  But once he got out and got help, he has learned to fight it through medication and counseling.  Applicant is becoming a very successful individual and is working full-time and wants to go to school full-time, if his G I Bill benefits are fixed.  See Ex. 3, pages 1-2.  For these reasons, Applicant requests that his Other than Honorable Discharge be upgraded to a least an Honorable Discharge.  Applicant had completed almost his entire contractual obligation to the Marine when he was discharged.  See Ex. 1.”

Remarks: “On behalf of Applicant, I would just ask for any disposition of the upgrade of his discharge that is just and fair.  Please consider the upgrade and/or any other remedy the Board feels is fair.”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214
Letter from Wohl Psychiatry Clinic, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, dated June 21, 2004
Forty-seven pages from Applicant’s civilian medical records
Letter from Wohl Clinic, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, dated February 14, 2003
Character reference, dated September 20, 2004
Letter of reference, dated February 3, 2003
Forty-six pages from Applicant’s service record

Documents received subsequent to receiving the Applicant’s DD-293 and considered by the NDRB:

Letter from the Applicant’s legal representative, dated May 26, 2005
Letter from the Applicant, 2 pages, (not dated)
Copy of Letter of Appreciation, dated 04 Mar 1993
Certificate of Superior Physical Achievement, dated 21 May 97
Certificate of Commendation, Commander Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, NC, 		dated 27 February 1997
Twenty-one pages from the Applicant’s Administrative Discharge package, (not 		dated)
Five pages from the Applicant’s service record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)			920331 - 921102	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  921103		Date of Discharge:  980630

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    05  07  28
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  6

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  86

Highest Rank:  Cpl			MOS:  2542

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.3 (15)			Conduct:  4.2 (15)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  REB, NDSM, LoA, OSR, CoC

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.2.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

931008:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Failure to secure CMS safe #1 after inventory.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

931227:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Failure to be at appointed place of duty, attempting to mislead my NCOIC, and addressing a false statement to a SNCO.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

940520:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Your inability to act in a mature manner and my inability to follow all rules and guidance set forth by the Marine Corps and my chain of command concerning the policy dealing with the consumption of alcohol prior to duty.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

940603:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:
Specification: Fail to go at time prescribed to a scheduled appointment with NIS at 1300, 940517.
Awarded forfeiture of $224.00 per month for 1 month, correctional custody for 7 days.  Not appealed.

950127:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Maintaining Marine Corps standards for personal appearance.  Repeatedly, you have been counseled on the need for a haircut and the total disregard for shaving.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

950210:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Informing you that your Base driving privileges have been revoked for a period of three months from 950113-950413.  You are not to drive aboard any Marine Corps Installations, Family housing areas, approach roads to these bases or areas and all installation gates.]

961118:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:
Specification: Left without authority from his watch on 1530, 961020.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (2 specs):
Specification 1: Derelict in performance of duties on 1530, 961020, by willfully failing to have two people for security watch.
Specification 2: Violated BO 6200.3B on 1530, 961020, by smoking in a government building.
Awarded forfeiture of $604.00 per month for 2 months, restriction for 60 days.  Forfeiture for 1 month suspended for 6 months.  Not appealed.

970415:	Applicant informed eligible but not recommended for promotion to Sgt for the month of May 1997 period because of recent NJP.

971028:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Violations regarding security procedures in the communications center.  I (Applicant) also slept late causing myself to miss a PT formation.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.  Applicant choose to make a statement.

971028:	Applicant informed eligible but not recommended for promotion to Sgt for the month of November promotion quarter 4 because of my lack of leadership.

971103:	Applicant failed to submit a statement for two page 11 entries dated 971028 within five working days.

971127:	Applicant informed eligible but not recommended for promotion to Sgt for the month of December for promotion quarter 4 because of my lack of responsibility.

971218:	Applicant informed eligible but not recommended for promotion to Sgt for the month of January promotion quarter 1 because of my lack of leadership and initiative.

980129:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs):
Specification 1: Unauthorized absence from 0800-0901, 980127.
Specification 2: Unauthorized absence from 1600-1627, 980127.
Awarded restriction and extra duties for 14 days.  Not appealed.

980130:	Applicant informed eligible but not recommended for promotion to Sgt for the month of February promotion quarter 1 because of my lack of leadership and responsibility.

980217:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134:
Specification: Break restriction.
Awarded forfeiture of $615.00 per month for 2 months, restriction for 45 days, reduction to E-3.  Not appealed.

980303:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Loss of my meal card.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided.

980317:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134 (2 specs):
Specification 1: Break restriction on 0900, 980308.
Specification 2: Break restriction on 1300, 980314.
Awarded forfeiture of $519.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duties for 45 days, reduction to E-2.  Not appealed.

980424:	Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

980515:	An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions.

980619:	GCMCA, Commanding General, Marine Corps Base, Camp S_ D. B_, directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions.

Parts of Applicant’s discharge package missing from service record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19980630 under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions (A).  After a thorough review of the available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (B and C).  The presumption of regularity of governmental affairs was applied by the Board in this case in the absence of a complete discharge package (D).

Issue 1.  After a complete review of the entire record, including the evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that the Applicant’s characterization of discharge was appropriate.  The Applicant claims that his discharge was improper in light of a post-service diagnosis of chronic schizophrenia, paranoid type.  After thorough consideration of this issue, the Board found no evidence that Applicant’s misconduct was a result of this condition.  There is also no evidence that Applicant was denied appropriate medical care or that he was denied the opportunity to present relevant evidence at this administrative separation hearing.  Relief denied. 

When the service of a member of the U.S. Marine Corps has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.  An under other than honorable conditions 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 6 retention warnings and 5 nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 86 (4 specs of UA), 92 (1 spec of dereliction of duty and 1 spec of failure to obey order, regulation), and 134 (3 specs of breaking restriction) of the UCMJ.  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 U.S. Marine Corps and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service.  Relief is not warranted.

In the Applicant’s case, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore considered the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable.  Specifically, the Applicant alleged that his “Admin Sep Board was conducted in a very volatile and unfair manner”.   The record, however, contains no evidence of any wrongdoing by the members of the Administrative Separation Board or anyone else involved in the discharge process.  The Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary.  As such, this Board presumed that Applicant’s discharge was regular in all respects.  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 6210, MISCONDUCT, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 31 Jan 97 until 31 Aug 2001. 

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety.

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

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 “http://Boards.law.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:

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