ex-, USMC   

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20090331
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)	19890630 - 19890723  	Active:		19890724 - 19930723   RELAD
	R	19930724 - 19950530  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  19950531	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Months
Date of Discharge:  19960624	Highest Rank:  
Length of Service:    Year(s)    Month(s)  24  Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  65/53
MOS:  0231
Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle     (WITH 1 BRONZE STAR)  (WITH 3 BRONZE STARS) 

Periods of CONF:  

NJP:  
- 19960501:	Article 86 (UA - fail to go at time prescribed)
	Article 90 (Willfully disobeyed a lawful order)
	Article 134 (wrongfully communicated a threat)
	Awarded:    Suspended:  

SCM:  

SPCM:  

CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- 19950104:	For lack of discipline to report to work on time.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

	  “GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS”
	  “PERSONALITY DISORDER”

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/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 Congress member:	

	Other Documentation:  

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Paragraph 6203, CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT, 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 II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs, Part V, Para 502, Propriety and Para 503, Equity.

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

Applicant’s Issues
1.  Decisional issue: Applicant believes he was given an incorrect discharge.
2.  Decisional issue: Applicant believes his work environment was hostile. 
3.  Decisional issue:  He did not receive command support for personal problems.

Decision

Date:  20091112		Location: Washington D.C.	 Representation: 

By a vote of  the Characterization shall  .
By a vote of  the Narrative Reason shall  CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT – PERSONALITY DISORDER.

Discussion
The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.  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.  The Applicant’s record of service reflects  6105 counseling warning,    for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (UA - fail to go at time prescribed), Article 90 (Willfully disobeyed a lawful order) and Article 134 (wrongfully communicated a threat).  The NDRB did not have the Applicant’s administrative separation package to determine whether or not the Applicant waived  rights to consult with qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends he was erroneously discharged for Personality Disorder, when none existed.  Review of his service and medical records, revealed the Applicant was hospitalized on 27 March 1996 for homicidal ideation (thoughts of killing some people at work) and major depression.  He had branded himself with a heated paperclip, and carved initials on his left arm.  Subsequent psychiatric evaluations dated 16 April, 18 April and 30 April 1996 all recommend administrative separation due to Major Depression, Narcissist Personality, Adjustment Disorder and Anti-Social Traits.  The Applicant stated during the psychiatric interviews on 18 and 30 April that his family came before the Marine Corps and an administrative separation would help his situation.  On 24 June 1996, the Applicant was separated for Convenience of the Government due to Personality Disorder.  As a result of his page 11 counseling and NJP, the Applicant received a General (under honorable conditions) characterization of service.  Based on the documentation in his service and medical records, the Board determined his claim of an erroneous discharge is without merit.  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.  However, if the Applicant can provide support documentation that he is currently under medical care for depression, he is encouraged to petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records to grant a change in the type of narrative reason for depression vice personality disorder. 

Issues 2, 3:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant states his unit was racist.  He claims that when he complained to the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC), he was processed out to cover up these issues.  Aside from his own statement and the names of two former co-workers, the Applicant failed to produce documentation to support his claim his unit was racist.  Although the Applicant alleges that he was discharged because he brought his problems to the attention of the CMC, and email he provided to show communication between he and then-CMC Gen Krulak simply addressed the Applicant’s contribution to naming a place in the desert during an operation. In the email to General Krulak he made no complaint regarding racism or unfair treatment.  Additionally, the Applicant states no one in his chain of command assisted him when, while he was deployed on CAX, his pregnant wife left his duty station at Camp Lejeune NC and moved to St Louis, MO.  At that time, he also discovered his father had suffered a stroke.  The Applicant claims his personal problems were the reason he went UA.  His military service records reveal that the Applicant was granted ten days emergency leave to care for his family.  He was denied a three day extension and a humanitarian transfer to the nearest I & I because he did not produce, as was his responsibility, sufficient medical or hardship justification to support either request.  While he may believe his personal problems may have impacted his decision to go UA, all of his psychiatric evaluations state the Applicant was fully responsible for his actions.  In the absence of supporting documentation or evidence, the Board determines his claims of racism and lack of support from his command are without merit.

Summary:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service,  record entries, and discharge process, the Board found   Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall   and the narrative reason for separation shall remain .

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of  discharge, June 24 1996.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically the paragraphs titled Additional Reviews, Automatic Upgrades, and Post-Service Conduct.]

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant 

Complaint Procedures:  If you believe 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:  After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s 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.  There are veterans organizations such as the American Legion and the Association of Service Disable Veterans that are willing to provide guidance to former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade.  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 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  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 NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the NDRB’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 BCNR can make changes to reenlistment codes.  Additionally, the NDRB 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 is processed subsequently for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings.  If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct or for any basis wherein an Other Than Honorable discharge is authorized, 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 BCNR can grant this type of narrative reason change.

Automatic Upgrades - There is no law or regulation that provides for an unfavorable discharge to be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct subsequent to leaving naval service.  

Post-Service Conduct:  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  Outstanding post-service conduct, 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, is considered during Board reviews.  Documentation to support a post-service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s birth certificates (if applicable); character witness statements; documentation of community or church service; certification of non-involvement with civil authorities; evidence of financial stability or letters of good standing from banks, credit card companies, or other financial institutions; attendance or completion of higher education (official transcripts); and documentation of a drug-free lifestyle.   The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate  in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

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 NDRB 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