ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20080220
Characterization of Service Received:  
Narrative Reason for Discharge:  
Authority for Discharge:  MARCORSEPMAN  

Applicant’s Request:  Characterization change to:  
		       Narrative Reason change to:  CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: USMCR (DEP) 20041103 - 20050109  		Active:   

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20050110	Period of Enlistment:   Years   Months	Date of Discharge:  20050809
Length of Service:    Years    Months   00  Days	Education Level:  	Age at Enlistment:  	AFQT:  94
MOS:  9900	Highest Rank:  	Fitness Reports:  
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):	   / 
Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):  Rifle  

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJP:  
20050630:  Article 86 (UA), from 20050427 to 20050605 (39 days)
                   Awarded:      Suspended:  

6105 Counseling:  

Administrative Corrections to the former service member’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

	  “MISCONDUCT-ABSENT WITHOUT LEAVE (admin board required but waived)”

The NDRB will recommend to the Commandant of the Marine Corps that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.

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):   
	- Bipolar Disorder information
	- Picture of former service member
	- Picture of former service member and family

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.  Request upgrade based on mitigating circumstances.

Decision

Date:  20081023		Location:  Washington D.C.	 Representation:  

By a vote of  the Characterization shall  .
By a vote of  the Narrative Reason shall  Secretarial Authority.

Discussion

The Naval Discharge Review Board offers its sincere condolences to the family of the former service member for the loss of their son.  It was with the greatest respect for his desire to serve our country the Naval Discharge Review Board considered the events and all available documentation leading up to his discharge and weighed those events against the standards of Naval discipline applied throughout our great Service.  The Board was mindful of his past struggles and it was in this light the members reflected on all the circumstances surrounding this tragic case.

:  (Equity) RELIEF WARRANTED.  The Board reviews the propriety and equity of a discharge individually, on a case-by-case basis.  If such a review reveals an impropriety or inequity, relief is in order.  Regulations permit relief on equitable grounds if a discharge is inconsistent with discipline standards of the Naval Service.  In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant on behalf of his son.

In the case of the former service member, the Board conducted a thorough review of his Service and Medical Records and the documents forwarded to the Board by his parents and their legal representative.  Based on the information contained in the family’s petition to the Board, he struggled in life from the time he was a young child until his tragic death 23 months after his military discharge.  After reviewing the enlistment and entry medical forms the Board concluded, based on official documentation, the Marine Corps was not fully aware of his mental health and drug/alcohol abuse issues prior to his acceptance into the Marine Corps.  Although the family states they voiced their concerns to the recruiter, unfortunately there is no record of what was said during these meetings nor any annotations such meetings occurred.  Therefore, the Board must use the information the former service member chose to reveal about himself on the official enlistment application.  While the Board does not dispute the family’s effort in attempting to make the Marine Corps aware of their son’s past, the Board has to accept the fact the official enlistment application does not contain any of the privileged information provided from the family to the recruiter.  The record does show the Marine Corps was aware of and waived a pre-service drug usage for marijuana and a drug paraphernalia possession charge.  This not an uncommon practice, the Marine Corps feels youthful past mistakes should not hinder one’s desire to serve their country honorably, thus second chances are normally granted.  While drug use is not tolerated once in the Marine Corps, the service has come to understand many youths experiment in their early teens with minor drugs and alcohol.  It is the expectation of the Marine Corps the discipline, guidance, and responsibility one assumes upon earning the title United States Marine removes most young men from the desire to participate in drugs and excessive alcohol use.          

On the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) physical exam, there is no indication the former service member reported his past history of mental health or drug/alcohol abuse, beyond that for which he was already given a waiver.  Once again, this is not an uncommon occurrence as many young former service members are embarrassed of their past association with both of these issues and attempt to down play the significance it has had on them.  Additionally, there was no indication the drug use was deemed a major concern for enlistment purposes by reviewing the official service record; a pre-service drug waiver was obtained and the member was noted as possessing “the attributes necessary in order to become a good Marine.” Occasionally, those with similar problems desiring to serve their country believe joining the military will help them gain a clearer understanding of themselves and provide direction they previous have been unable to obtain on their own.   

Once enlisted, he proceeded to boot camp and did well.  The record reflects he reported to medical for only minor physical ailments during boot camp.  After graduating from boot camp he returned home on leave.  He then entered into an unauthorized leave status and only with the intervention of his father returned to his follow-on command for training.  Documentation provided by the parent’s attorney does indicate the father discussed his son’s mental condition with his new command while the service member was in this state of unauthorized absence.  However, once again official records do not indicate any of this was entered into his military service record.  The NDRB does not doubt this discussion occurred based on the concern displayed by the former member’s parents over the mental stability of their son.  He returned to his command, accompanied by his father, at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina on 20 April 2005.  The father’s statement indicated the command assured him his son was going to be seen by a medical professional upon return.  There is no documentation in the former service member’s medical records indicating he was seen by military medical professionals immediately upon his return.  Unfortunately, seven days later on 27 April 2005, he ended up entering into an unauthorized absence status again.  This time, while in an unauthorized absence status, he received mental health treatment from two different civilian agencies; the Ridge Behavioral Health System and the Kentucky Clinic, University of Kentucky, which diagnosed him with having major depression and a Bipolar Disorder.  Once he had completed treatment, he returned to his command after being in an unauthorized absence status for 39 days.  Upon return to his command, he received treatment for his mental health issues on several occasions: documented are 7 June, 9 June, and 7 July 2005.  Additionally, during this period, the former service member was subject to non-judicial punishment for a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):  Article 86 (UA).  

Shortly after his NJP, on 7 July 2005, the military medical staff psychiatrist recommended the military separate the former service member, due to a bipolar disorder, at the convenience of the government.  Once he was deemed stable and released by the military medical professionals, the Marine Corps administratively separated him on 9 August 2005 with an “Under Other Than Honorable” discharge characterization and the narrative reason for separation being “Misconduct”, based on his Article 86 violation of being UA.   For the benefit of the parents, when a member commits misconduct, the misconduct will trump any lesser narrative reason for separation (i.e., a medical condition); this is standard procedures in accordance with DOD and Navy policy and is not done to lessen or downplay the seriousness of a member’s medical condition.  Tragically, 23 months after his military discharge he ended his emotional struggle by taking his own life.  

The Board found, after a thorough review of the former service member’s Summary of Service, Service and Medical Records, Discharge Process and additional evidence submitted by his family that as a result of his confirmed bipolar condition and the mitigating factors of his emotional distress, relief was warranted.  The Board determined an upgrade in the discharge characterization to “General (Under Honorable Conditions)”, as requested, would be appropriate.  

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F, effective 1 September 2001 until Present, Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT.

B.  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 V, Para 502, Propriety and Para 503, Equity.

C.  The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 (UA).

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 or is referred to a court-martial 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 other medical related reasons.”  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 special 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.  The NDRB does not have the jurisdictional authority to review a discharge or dismissal resulting from a general court-martial.

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