ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20080401
Characterization of Service Received:  
Narrative Reason for Discharge:  
Authority for Discharge:  MARCORSEPMAN 

Applicant’s Request:  Characterization change to:  
		       Narrative Reason change to: 

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: USMCR (DEP)	19981026 - 981027  		Active:   

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 19981028		   Period of Enlistment:   Years   Months		Date of Discharge:  19991214
Length of Service:    Yrs    Mths  17  Dys	Education Level:  	Age at Enlistment:  	AFQT:  27     
MOS:  0311  	Highest Rank:   			Fitness reports:  
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):	 ()/ ()
Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):  Rifle  Pistol  

Periods of UA: 19990718 – 19990928 (70 days)

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

Related to Military Service:	DD 214:  	Service and/or Medical Record:  		Other Records:  

Related to Post-Service Period:	
	Employment:  			Finances:  			Education/Training:	
	Health/Medical Records:		Substance Abuse:			Criminal Records:	
	Family/Personal Status: 		Community Service:  		References:  		
	
Additional Statements From Applicant:  		From Representation:  		From Member of Congress:  
Other Documentation (Describe)   
                  -  Statement from Mr. P. dated 19 Mar 2008.

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, MCOP 1900.E  Paragraph 6419, SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 August 1995 until 31 August 2001.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part IV, Para 403m(7)(b), Presumption Concerning Court-Martial Specifications.

C.  The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge and confinement up to 3 years if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Articles 86, 91, 95 and 128.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.  Discharge should have been based on Mental Health not MISCONDUCT.   Applicant is requesting upgrade of his    characterization of discharge to HONORABLE.

Decision

Date:  20080807		Location:  Washington D.C.	 Representation:  

By a vote of  the Characterization shall  .
By a vote of  the Narrative Reason shall  SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY.

Discussion

: ()  .  The Applicant’s is requesting his discharge be upgraded from “Under Other Than Honorable” to “Honorable” because of his mental health issues, which he infers caused his problems while on active duty.  The Applicant’s father also writes a letter on his son’s behalf.  

During Board reviews the government is presumed to conduct its affairs with regularity unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  The Applicant’s father states in a letter his son was fairly functional prior to joining the Marine Corps.  However, he indicated there were episodes of withdrawn and negative behavior prior to his enlistment.  The Applicant also provides a Discharge Summary from Cherry Hospital, Goldsboro, N.C., dated 15 December 1999 which states his psychotic symptoms are suggestive of Schizophrenia.

In reviewing the Applicant’s service and military medical records it was found the Applicant’s unit asked for a full psychological evaluation on 15 April 1999 due to ongoing concerns about his mental health.  He had exhibited a pattern of active psychosis marked by progressive periods of withdrawal behavior; isolation; decreased attention to personal grooming; crying jags before his Staff Noncommissioned Officer; and unusual religious beliefs.  Additionally, he allegedly threatened to kill his girl friend.  Despite his unit’s concerns, the Division Psychiatrist returned him to full duty, but recommended the command counsel the Applicant and document further incidents.  

The Applicant entered into an Unauthorized Absence status on 18 July 1999 and was declared a deserter on 17 August 1999; he was apprehended on 28 September 1999 by the Monroe County Police, Monroe, MI and returned to military custody.    During this transition period, after he was apprehended, he succeeded in violating several Articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to include Articles 91, 95, and 128.  It was noted the Applicant had no disciplinary infractions prior to his UA.  While under military custody preparing to fly back to Camp Lejeune, NC, the Applicant suffered a breakdown at Chicago’s Ohare International Airport where he publicly accused the military chasers of trying to kill him and screamed for help from passers-by.  He fought restraint and attempted to flee the airport running away from his chasers until they were able to subdue him.  The Applicant, upon return to Camp Lejeune, was sent to the brig awaiting trial by court-martial.  

The Brig Psychiatrist reports he refused food, water and clothing; choosing to remain naked despite the Brig being very cold.  The Applicant was angry, disrespectful and would not respond to questions, but the psychiatrist states he did not exhibit any other behaviors which would suggest he is psychotic.  On 24 November 1999 a Navy Ensign Physician’s Assistant evaluated the Applicant and said he appears to be manipulative and seeks attention.  The Applicant continued to refuse to speak or eat and the decline continued in his level of functioning and personal care.  Additionally, he suffered from grossly impaired thought process saying several times he was 99 yrs old.  On 3 December 1999, due to his decreasing cooperation, he was taken from the Brig to the Camp Lejeune Naval Hospital Psychiatric Ward, where he stayed for two weeks until he was formally discharged from the Marine Corps.  His parents immediately placed him in Cherry Hospital, Goldsboro, NC where he was diagnosed with psychotic symptoms suggestive of Schizophrenia.   

The Applicant’s family feels their son’s medical condition and lack of immediate treatment when problems were first noticed were factors that contributed to his actions.  The evidence of record demonstrates since spring 1999 the Applicant was becoming more and more withdrawn and not functioning properly.  Since mental illness is a gradual disease, the Board feels the initial symptoms were apparent long before he went UA and attempted to flee apprehension.  The Board determined the Applicant’s emerging mental illness impacted his reasoning abilities and his actions.  Due to the Applicant’s extended Unauthorized Absence, the Board is unable to award the requested “Honorable Discharge”.  However, a review of the Applicant’s medical record convinced the Board the Applicant’s behavior may have been influenced by factors outside the Applicant’s control and the Board is therefore approving the character of his discharge be upgraded to “General (Under Honorable Conditions)”.

Due to the Applicant’s acute mental trauma at time of discharge, the Board recommends the Applicant, or someone acting on his behalf, petition the Board for Corrections of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100 for further review to determine if a medical discharge would be more appropriate.
  
After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service,  Record, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found   

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

Complaint Procedures:  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 Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Instruction to the Joint Service Review Activity, OUSD (P&R) PI-LP, The Pentagon, Washington, DC  20301-4000.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the Instruction 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 Instruction 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “http://Boards.law.af.mil.”

Additional Reviews:  Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the 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.  If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted his opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100 for further review.

Service Benefits:  The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the Naval 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.

Employment/Educational Opportunities:  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 of the propriety and equity of the discharge.  

Reenlistment/RE-code:  Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, the NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code.  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.  Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.  An unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment.  A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.

Medical Conditions and Misconduct:  DoD disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation.  Appropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons.  Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board, and subsequently is processed for an administrative involuntary separation for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended.  The Physical Evaluation Board case remains in suspense pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings.  If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct, the medical board report is filed in the member’s terminated health record.  Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or “PTSD.”  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records can grant this type of narrative reason change.  

Automatic Upgrades - 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 may be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  

Issues Concerning Bad-Conduct Discharges (BCD) – Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts, issues relating to the Applicant’s innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief.  With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency.  Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed.  

Board Membership:  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