ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20091119
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)	19960927 - 19961014  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  19961015	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Months
Date of Discharge:  19981021	Highest Rank:  
Length of Service:    Year(s)    Month(s)  07  Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  31
MOS:  0341
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):   () /  ()	Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  Pistol   

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJP:  

- 19971120:	Article  (Dereliction in performance of guard duties, CINCUSNAVEUR), 19970902
	Awarded:      Suspended:   (suspended 6 months; vacated 19980518)

- 19980518:	Article 108 (Destruction of government property, BEQ furniture), 19980424 
	Awarded:     Suspended:   (suspended 6 months)

SCM:  

SPCM:  

CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- 19971120:	For dereliction of duty while assigned as a sentry at the CINCUSNAVEUR Headquarters.  Specifically, while assigned to Post 1 on 19970902, I allowed an unauthorized person to enter the Headquarters undetected.  My inattention to duty could have resulted in theft, loss or compromise of vital naval assets or endangered the lives of my fellow Marines or other civilian and military personnel working in the building.

- 19980331:	For returning 4.5 hours late from CONUS leave on 19980330 after the expiration of my authorized leave.  I told the Guard Chief that I was divorced while on leave and that I deliberately changed my return flight schedule, knowing that I would be UA.  I also told him that my “life was screwed up” and in my current state of mind I could not properly fulfill my duties as a member of the guard platoon.

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:		Rehabilitation/Treatment:		Criminal Records:	
	Personal Documentation:		Community Service:		References:	
	Department of VA letter:		Other Documentation:	
		Additional Statements:
	From Applicant:		From/To Representation:		From/To Congress member:	

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.	Applicant seeks review of his discharge due to conflicting recommendations he received on his character of service.

Decision

Date:  20110128		Location: Washington D.C.	 Representation: 

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

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 governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  The Applicant identified one decisional issue for the Board’s consideration.  The Board completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to  discharge and the discharge process to ensure  discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.  The Applicant’s record of service included  6105 retention counseling warnings: (20 Nov 1997) dereliction of duty while standing guard duty at CINCUSNAVEUR HQ and (31 Mar 1998) for deliberately returning late from CONUS leave and not being able to properly fulfill duties as a member of guard platoon because of his current state of mind.  The record also contained   for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation, allowing unauthorized person to enter CINCUSNAVEUR HQ undetected, 2 Sep 1997) and Article 108 (Military property, damage, destruction of BEQ chair and fan, 24 Apr 1998).  The Applicant’s medical records also indicate a diagnosis for hepatitis C and a long history of alcohol-related incidents, to include heavy drinking and fighting before and during his enlistment, which resulted in his admission for in-patient alcohol rehabilitation treatment from 13-31 Jul 1998.  During rehabilitation treatment and subsequent follow-up treatment for hepatitis C, the Applicant stated he had recently divorced his wife of 9 months for infidelity and lost a close friend due to death.  He was evaluated by the Mental Health department and diagnosed with AXIS I: Psychotic Disorder NOS, pre-existing Poly-substance Abuse, and Alcohol Abuse; and AXIS II: Anti-Social Personality Disorder.  Based on the Applicant’s questionable reliability and performance in Marine Security Forces and the aforementioned medical evaluation of Psychotic Disorder NOS and Personality Disorder, his command administratively processed  for separation.  Due to incomplete records, the NDRB did not have the Applicant’s administrative separation package to determine whether or not the Applicant exercised or waived  rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant seeks review of his discharge due to conflicting recommendations he received on his character of service.  In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  The Board closely examined the Applicant’s service and medical records to determine if his discharge met the standards of propriety and equity as determined by the applicable directives in effect at the time of his separation.  Though the service record is incomplete and missing the administrative separation package documentation, the records do reflect that the Commander, U.S. Marine Forces Atlantic, on 16 Oct 1998, directed that the Applicant be administratively separated from the Marine Corps for Personality Disorder, with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) character of service, and separation code of HFX1 (Admin Board waived).

The Applicant was advised on 24 Jun 1998, via Page 11 counseling, that he was not able to stand post as an armed sentry (at CINCUSNAVEUR HQ) because he had been found unfit for duty by a mental health provider.  Paragraph 6203.3 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual (MARCORSEPMAN) specifically states a Marine may not be separated for Personality Disorder unless they have been given a retention warning in accordance with paragraph 6105.  After consideration of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s discharge, the Board noted that though the Applicant did not receive a paragraph 6105 retention warning, the Page 11 counseling he did receive met the spirit and intent of informing the Marine of his deficiency and allowing an opportunity to correct it.  Moreover, the Applicant’s pattern of unreliability, as evidenced by his dereliction of duty standing guard post, deliberate unauthorized absence, and willful destruction of government property, resulted in two NJPs and two 6105 retention warnings, and his average in-service proficiency/conduct marks of 3.9/3.9, respectively, reflected his inability to meet the established high standards of performance and conduct expected of members of the Naval Service and warranted a General (Under Honorable Conditions) character of service.  Per the MARCORSEPMAN, a Marine may be awarded a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge when their service has been honest and faithful, but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance outweigh positive aspects of the member’s military record.  Additionally, upon separation, if a member’s average proficiency marks are below 3.0 and average conduct marks are below 4.0, the Marine can be awarded a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge.  As such, the Board determined that the Applicant’s discharge met the standards of propriety and equity.

Summary:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service,  record entries, and administrative separation 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.  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 Disabled American 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 their 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 at 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