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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

 ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD05-01064

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050606.  The Applicant requests the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed to “Failure to Adapt.”  The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing discharge review before the Board in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area.  The Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.  

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20051117.  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 reason for discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain Uncharacterized by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to a fraudulent entry.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the attached document/letter to the Board:

“I B_ A_ R_, am requesting a change for the narrative reason for separation.  The narrative reason for separation that is stated in box#28, on DD form 214, is based on a false confession.  My recruiter instructed me to lie about taken Ritalin, in case I was asked.  He told me this so there would not be any problems with me leaving to boot camp.  I was very young and impressionable so I did what he instructed me to do.  At the time I didn’t have a clue about the military, so I thought he new what he was best for me.  When things became harder that I could handle for me in boot camp, the drill instructors told me to tell the mental health unit physician at medical that I would harm myself or some on else if I couldn’t go home.  I was very home sick at the time, so I did what the drill instructor told me.  When I told the MHU physician this, I also stated that I had, prior boot camp, indulged in to drugs and alcohol heavily.  This was no the truth at all.  Before I entered the Marine Corps, I was in my high schools cross country team and was very outgoing and athletic.  I always made it a point to stay away from drug and alcohol.
It’s been 7 years and 2 months since I left the Marine Corps.  In that time I have married, bought my own house, became a father, and finished one year of college.  I’m also in the Forgotten Eagle, a veterans group that supports veterans and their families.  I really regret giving a false confession once again.  In order to do this I would have to get the Re-entry code and the narrative reason for separation, which is stated on box 27 and 28 on my DD form 214 changed.
Please give me a opportunity to prove myself to you”

Sincerely, 
[signed]
B_ A_ R_  

Documentation

Only the service record book was reviewed.  The Applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board’s consideration.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USMCR (DEP)	19970620 – 19980622		COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  19980623		Date of Discharge:  19980807

Length of Service (years, months, days):

Active:    00  01  15  
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  none
	Confinement:		  none

Age at Entry:  18 

Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  33

Highest Rank:  PFC				MOS:  9900

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  NA*			Conduct:  NA*

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as stated on the DD Form 214):  None

*Not Available

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:

980803:	Applicant examined at MCRD San Diego Mental Health Unit (MHU).  
Provisional Diagnosis:  R/O Depressive.  D/O NOS Anitsocial Personality Traits.
Current Stressors:  Applicant referred to MHU because he threw his weapon on deck after becoming angry.  Applicant stated that he just snapped after drill instructors were yelling at him.  Applicant stated that “I try to get things right but because of the ADD I have trouble understanding.”  Applicant also stated that he had suicidal ideation 3 weeks prior, depression and crying spells.
	Psychiatric History:  Applicant diagnosed with ADD in 9th or 10th grade, was prescribed Wellbutrin.
	Recommend:  Strongly recommend ELS.

980803:	Branch Medical Clinic, MCRD San Diego.  Applicant diagnosed with adjustment disorder.  Referred for administrative Entry Level Separation.  Applicant’s condition is unlikely to change if retained.

980806:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as entry-level separation by reason of defective enlistment-fraudulent enlistment.  The factual basis for this recommendation was due to the Applicant’s pre-service adjustment disorder.  

980806:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

980806:	Commanding Officer, 2nd RTBN, RTR, MCRD/WRR, SAN DIEGO, CA recommended Applicant’s discharge for by reason of fraud. Commanding Officer’s comments: On 980803, SNR was sent to MHU, Branch Medical Clinic, San Diego, for a psychological evaluation.  During evaluation, SNR revealed a prior history of psychiatric treatment to MHU personnel.  SNR failed to disclose this information at MEPS or the MOT.  MHU diagnosed SNR as having an adjustment disorder with depressed mood.  MHU recommends ELS ASAP, and that SNR’s condition is unlikely to change if retained.

980807:	GCMCA, Commanding General, Marine Recruit Depot, San Diego, CA,  directed the Applicant's discharge with an uncharacterized service by reason of defective enlistment and induction fraud adjustment disorder.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19980807 by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to a fraudulent entry (A) with a service characterization of uncharacterized.  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).  

For the edification of the Applicant, MCO P1900.16E, effective 18 Aug 95 until 31 Aug 01, specifies that the narrative reason for separation code JDA1, should read, “Fraudulent Entry Into Military Service.”  The Commandant, Headquarters USMC, Quantico, VA, will be notified, recommending that the Applicant’s DD-214 be corrected or reissued, as appropriate.

On  19980803, the Applicant made a voluntary statement that he had been diagnosed with ADD prior to his enlistment.  The Board found that the documentation and statements provided for review do not refute the presumption that the Applicant deliberately misrepresented his medical condition during the enlistment process, including the omission or concealment of facts which, if known at the time would have reasonably been expected to preclude, postpone, or otherwise affect the Marine’s eligibility for enlistment or induction.  In addition, the documentation available for review did not refute the presumption that his ADD still existed during the time of his enlistment.  No other narrative reason other than fraudulent entry more clearly describes the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s processing for administrative separation.  Relief denied.

By regulation, members notified of intended recommendation for discharge within the first 180 days of enlistment are eligible for an uncharacterized or entry-level separation characterization of service.  Unless there were unusual circumstances regarding a servicemember’s performance or conduct that would merit an honorable characterization, an uncharacterized discharge is generally considered the most appropriate characterization of a member’s service. Further, the Applicant should be aware that, with respect to nonservice-related administrative matters, i.e., VA benefits, educational pursuits, and especially civilian employment, an uncharacterized separation is considered the equivalent of an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

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.  The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, MCO P1900.16E), effective 
18 Aug 95 until 31 Aug 2001, paragraph 6204, DEFECTIVE ENLISTMENT AND INDUCTION.

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