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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

 ex-LCPL, USMC
Docket No. MD05-01233

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050718.  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 20060316.  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) by reason of unsatisfactory performance.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“My discharge was improper because it was just one issue during my Marine Corps career.  I had enjoyed serving as a Marine until my brother committed suicide in Nov’97.  After that I was extremely depressed and ceased to care about the Marine Corps or life in General.  I expressed to my Sergeant Major that I just wanted out and he had compassion.  Those years were a blur.  I have moved on with my life and I do not wish to have my depression at the time to represent my joy of being a Marine- that I had before my brother died.

Thank You

J_ W_ (Applicant)”

Documentation

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

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)	19950627 – 19951212		COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  19951213		Date of Discharge:  19990715

Length of Service (years, months, days):

Active:    03  07  03  
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  None
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  21

Years Contracted:  5

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  71

Highest Rank:  LCpl				MOS:  6154

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.3 (8) 				Conduct:  4.3 (8) 

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as stated on the DD Form 214):  Rifle Marksmanship Badge, Good Conduct Medal, Sea Service Deployment Ribbon.

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6206.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

971008:	Acknowledged understanding of eligibility but not recommended for promotion to Cpl for the month of (Oct/Nov/Dec 97) because of not meeting Marine Corps Military Standards.  Applicant chose not to make a statement.

980113:	Flight Surgeon Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron 367 determined the Applicant’s physical appearance is not due to a pathological disorder and that a realistic goal would be for the Applicant to lose three pounds per month for six months.

980113:	Applicant acknowledged that his physical condition does not appear to be due to a pathological disorder and reach a goal weight of 196 pounds in six months.  Applicant notified of available assistance and issued discharge warning.

980128:	Applicant acknowledged understanding of eligibility but not recommended for promotion to Cpl while assigned to weight control.  Applicant chose not to make a statement.

980423:	Applicant weight is 222 pounds with a body fat of 29%.  Applicant failed PFT.  [Extracted from Weight Control Status case letter of 990212.]

980618:	Counseling:  Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (Unsatisfactory progress while assigned to a military weight control program.  Applicant was assigned to weight control program on 980113 weighing 214 lbs. 18 lbs. over maximum allowable weight and given a weight loss goal of 3 lbs. per month.), necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

980710:	Applicant weight is 210 pounds with a body fat of 26%.  Applicant failed PFT.  [Extracted from Weight Control Status case letter of 990212.]

980803:	Applicant weight is 210 pounds with a body fat of 25%.  Applicant failed PFT.  [Extracted from Weight Control Status case letter of 990212.]

990125:	Applicant weight is 235 pounds with a body fat of 32%.  [Extracted from Weight Control Status case letter of 990212.]

990201:	Applicant weight is 235 pounds with a body fat of 31%.  [Extracted from Weight Control Status case letter of 990212.]

990424:	Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel, elected to waive all rights.

990607:	Commanding Officer, Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron 367, recommended the Applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) character of service by reason of Unsatisfactory Performance.  

990625:	Commanding General, 3d Marine Aircraft Wing, directed that the Applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) character of service by reason of Unsatisfactory Performance.

Service Record Book contains a partial Administrative Discharge package.  

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19990715 by reason unsatisfactory performance (A) with a service characterization of 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 Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (D).

The Applicant contends that his discharge was improper because “it was just one issue during” his enlistment.  When a Marine’s service 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 his failure to adhere to Marine Corps standards for twenty months.  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 short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service.  Relief is not warranted.

The Applicant further contends that after his brother’s death in November 1997, the Applicant became depressed and “failed to care about the Marine Corps.”  When a Marine’s performance of assigned tasks and duties are not contributory to unit readiness and/or mission accomplishment the Marine may be processed for administrative separation by reason of unsatisfactory performance.  Due to the Applicant’s failure to conform to standards for over a year, the Applicant’s Commanding Officer elected to recommend the Applicant’s discharge by reason of unsatisfactory performance.  Though the Applicant alleges he was depressed, there is no indication in the record to indicate that the Applicant should not be held responsible for his conduct.  Relief on this basis is unwarranted.

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 any 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 additional evidence related to this discharge.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Paragraph 6206, UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 Aug 95 to 31August 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, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs.  

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