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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

 ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD05-00789

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050330.  The Applicant requests the Discharge 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 designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20051206.  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 reason for discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of convenience of the government due to a personality disorder.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“1) My discharge was inequitable because my service record before the claimed “personality disorder” was honorable.  Subsequent pros and cons were based on this disorder – supporting the discharge.
2) The conditions and timing surrounding my “personality disorder” and punishments and discharge are questionable and hypocritical.
3) The basis of my discharge were based on “false”/incorrect premise.  My conduct/performance & accomplishments before this diagnosis and After discharge do not support their claim.
4) My treatment was unprofessional and support for me- a law ranking college educated, minority, female and single mother was absent.
5) My rights to dignity and privacy were dishonored.
6) My rights to appeal, fight or stand up for myself were interfered with.”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214
One page from Applicant’s service record
Letter from Department of veterans Affairs, dtd November 8, 2002
E-mail character reference, dtd January 13, 2004
Letter of characterization, dtd November 12, 2003
Applicant’s personal statement (5 pages) not signed, not dated

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USMCR (DEP)	19981120 - 19990103	COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  19990104		Date of Discharge:  20021021

Length of Service (years, months, days):

Active:    03  09  18
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  None
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  25

Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  13				AFQT:  90

Highest Rank:  Cpl				MOS:  6672

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.0 (11)				Conduct:  3.8 (11)

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as stated on the DD Form 214):  Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Navy Unit Commendation, Certificate of Appreciation (5 Awds), Meritorious Mast, Rifle Qualification Badge (Marksman)

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:

000519:	Counseling:  Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (Failure to pass a Marine Corps Physical Fitness Test (PFT).  This performance is completely unsatisfactory.), necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, and advised that failure to take corrective action will/may result in administrative separation and/or judicial proceedings.

000528:	Applicant’s rebuttal to the 000519 counseling entry.

020227:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91(Note*):  On 1 Nov 01 and 5 Nov 01 SNM violated DOD Directive 5500.7R and MARADMIN 162/00 by inappropriate use of a government computer.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Between 9 Aug and 5 Nov 01 SNM violated U.S. Navy Regulation 1165 by having an inappropriate relationship with an officer.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $734 per month for 2 months, reduction to E-3.  Forfeiture suspended for 6 months.  Appealed 020304.  Appeal denied 020326. [Note*:  Based on 020113 counseling entry, this should be Art 92, not Art 91.]

020430:	Naval Hospital Camp Lejeune, NC Mental Health Outpatient Progress Note: Impression: AXIS I: Anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified, resolved occupational problems.  AXIS II: Personality disorder, not otherwise specified, with narcissistic and obsessive/compulsive features.  AXIS III: Knee problems.  AXIS IV: Active duty military service.  Single parent.  AXIS V: Global Assessment of functioning, at present: 70.

020511:	Commanding Officer, Naval Hospital, Camp Lejeune, NC, recommendation for the Applicant’s administrative separation:  Medical evaluation by Mental Health Clinic, Naval Hospital, Camp Lejeune, NC concluded that the Applicant’s personality disorder was so severe that her ability to function effectively in the military environment was significantly impaired.  Applicant is not mentally ill and is responsible for her behavior.  However, the Applicant does manifest a long-standing disorder of character and behavior which is of such severity as to interfere with her ability to function effectively in the military environment.  Although not imminently suicidal or homicidal, the member does poses a continuing risk to do harm to self or others and negatively impact unit effectiveness and morale if retained in naval service.  Therefore, it is strongly recommended that the 66105 entry be waived and that the member be processed for an administrative discharge in accordance with MARCORSEPMAN paragraph 6203.3 by reason of unsuitability. The member had been offered supportive follow-upon in the Mental Health Clinic pending processing.   

020523:	Counseling:  Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (Failure to pass a Marine Corps Physical Training Test (PFT).  This performance is completely unsatisfactory.), necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, and advised that failure to take corrective action will/may result in administrative separation and/or judicial proceedings

020606:	Forfeiture of pay awarded at NJP on 020227 vacated.

020626:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 89: On Jun 02 was disrespectful toward First Lieutenant J_ by continuing to talk back, smirking and rolling her eyes while being counseled.
Violation of UCMJ Article 90 (2 specs)
Specification 1: Having received a lawful command from First Lieutenant J_ to make sure childcare for her two children was arranged prior to assuming her duties each month, willfully disobeyed the same.
Specification 2: Having received a lawful command from First Lieutenant J_ on 3 June 02 to find appropriate child care for her children prior to her assuming her Group Duty Clerk post the evening of 3 Jun 02, willfully disobeyed the same.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $342 per month for 1 month, extra duty for 14 days.  Forfeiture and extra duty suspended for 6 months.  Not appealed.

020702*:	Commanding Officer, Headquarters Squadron, Marine Aircraft Group 29 recommended Applicant’s discharge with an honorable by reason of her unsuitability due to personality disorder general (under honorable conditions). [Note: * This letter is dated 020607 but refers to an interview between the CO and the Applicant on 020702.  Additional documentation supports the interview date of 020702.]

020729:	Forfeiture of pay awarded at NJP on 020626 vacated.

020802:	NJP for violation of UCMJ Article 92: From 31 May 02 to 16 Jul 02, SNM violated MCO Directive 5500.7R and MARADMIN 162/00 by inappropriate use of government computer.
	Award: Forfeiture of 619.00 per month for 2 months, extra duty for 45 days, and reduction to PFC. Forfeiture suspended for 6 months.

020905:	Commanding Officer, Marine Aircraft Group 29 notified the Applicant of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of convenience of the government due to personality disorder with a characterization general (under honorable conditions).  The factual basis for this recommendation was being diagnosed with a severe personality disorder as evidenced by the evaluation conducted by the Mental Health clinic at Camp Lejeune, NC.  Applicant’s condition will not likely change in a reasonable amount of time.  

020905:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

020905:	Commanding Officer, Marine Aircraft Group 29 to Commanding General, 2d Marine Aircraft Wing, recommending Applicant’s discharge with a general (under honorable conditions), by reason of convenience of the government due to a personality disorder.

021002:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

021002:	GCMCA, Commanding General, 2d Marine Aircraft Wing, directed the Applicant's discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government due to a personality disorder.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20021021 by reason of convenience of the government due to a personality disorder (A) with a general (under honorable conditions).  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 (B and C).  

The documentation and statements provided by the Applicant were not sufficient to overturn the presumption that the Applicant was properly diagnosed with a personality disorder.  The Applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder by a competent medical authority on 20020430.  The evidence reviewed did not persuade the Board that this diagnosis and subsequent administrative separation was improper or inequitable.  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.  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 3 nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 89, 90 (2 x specs), and 92 (3 x specs) of the UCMJ.  Violations of Articles 89 (disrespect toward superior commissioned officer), 90 (willfully disobeying lawful order of superior commissioned officer), and 92 (violation, failure to obey general order or regulation) are considered serious offenses.  In addition, the Applicant received 2 retention warnings for failure to pass the Marine Corps Physical Fitness test and had 2 suspended forfeitures of pay vacated due to continued misconduct.  Further, in her statement offered as a rebuttal to a counseling entry, the Applicant admitted to having been in jail for approximately 14 days during this period of service.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of her service, reflects her willful failure to meet the requirements of her contract with the U.S. Marine Corps and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of her characterization of service.  Relief is not warranted.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant.  Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have occurred during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question.  The Board discovered no impropriety after a review of Applicant’s case.  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 Naval service.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review.  Examples of documentation that should be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  As of this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient post-service documentation for the Board to consider.  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 her 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.  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.

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