ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20100223
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)	19970731 - 19970810  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  19970811	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Months
Date of Discharge:  19991129	Highest Rank:  
Length of Service:    Year(s)    Month(s) 19  Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  73
MOS:  0331
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):   () /  ()	Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle   

Periods of UA/CONF:  UA:  19990621, 1 day / CONF:  19990909-19991011, 33 days (pretrial)

NJP:  

- 19980608:	Article  (UA 19980601-19980607, 5 days)
	Awarded:    Suspended:  

- 19990603:	Article  (Failure to go at time prescribed to appointed place of duty)
	Article  (Disrespect toward 1st Lt), 2 specifications
	Article  (Disrespect toward Sgt)
	Article  (Disobey lawful order), 2 specifications
	Specification 1: Fail to stop
	Specification 2: Tuck his shirt in
	Awarded:     Suspended:  

- 19990624:	Article  (UA – restricted muster), 2 specifications
	Awarded:    Suspended:  

- 19991020:	Article  (Disrespect toward Capt)
	Article  (Disobey a lawful order), 2 specifications
	Specification 1: To report to Echo Company office
	Specification 2: To sit down
	Article , 3 specifications
	Specification 1: Disrespectful in language
	Specification 2: Willfully disobey a lawful order
	Specification 3: Assault SSgt
	Awarded:    Suspended:  

SCM:  

SPCM:  

CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- 19980828:	For telling your squad leader to “f--- o--“ on two occasions, once to LCpl’s face, and once in the presence of the Plt Sgt and the Plt Cmdr.  You did refuse to obey lawful orders to carry your weapon correctly during a company movement, to pick up your pack and weapon after you deliberately threw them down, and to return to the company column when you began walking into the desert.  You did willfully neglect and abuse government property by incorrectly carrying your M240G and allowing the muzzle to drag in the dirt, by throwing the spare barrel bag to the ground on several occasions.  You removed yourself from training by making claims of psychological imbalance and by making indirect threats against the safety and wellbeing of your fellow Marines.  You straggled during a company movement with the intent of malingering.

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):	200801250
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:	MD08-01250
NDRB Documentary Review Findings:		Proper as issued and that no change is warranted.

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 6210, MISCONDUCT, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 31 January 1997 until 31 August 2001.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	A hazing incident and early symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia impaired his ability to serve and was a contributing and mitigating factor to his misconduct.
 
Decision

Date:  20110511		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’s record of service included  6105 retention-counseling warning and  non-judicial punishments (NJP) for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (Unauthorized absence, 3 specifications), Article 89 (Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer, 2 specifications), Article 90 (Willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer, 2 specifications), Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward a noncommissioned officer, 4 specifications), and Article 92 (Failure to obey an order, 2 specifications).  Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant,  command administratively processed  for separation.  When notified of administrative separation processing, the Applicant elected his right to consult with a qualified counsel.  He waived his rights to submit a written statement to the Separation Authority and to request an administrative discharge hearing board.
 
:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends a hazing incident and early symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia impaired his ability to serve and was a contributing and mitigating factor to his misconduct.  He provided credible evidence and testimony to support his claim.  Documentary evidence, as well as Applicant and witness testimony, indicates the Applicant began showing signs of suffering from schizophrenia both prior to joining the Marine Corps and throughout his period of service and manifested itself in his history of misconduct.  The misconduct, however, was attributed to either Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder or normal adolescent behavior, instead of the more accurate diagnosis of schizophrenia.  While serving in the Marine Corps, military medical personnel either assessed or diagnosed him with various conditions such as antisocial personality disorder, anxiety disorder, and attention deficit disorder.  However, his schizophrenia remained undiagnosed throughout his military service.  Not until after the Applicant was discharged from the Marine Corps and admitted to a civilian mental hospital was he diagnosed as having paranoid schizophrenia.  Several doctors have since confirmed that diagnosis as well as concluded that his illness likely predated his service in the Marine Corps.  The NDRB unanimously concluded that his undiagnosed paranoid schizophrenia was a contributing factor to his misconduct, and provides some mitigation.  Relief granted. 

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 at discharge shall  , however, the narrative reason for separation shall remain .  The Applicant is no longer eligible for additional reviews or hearings by the NDRB.  He may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records, 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100 for further review using DD Form 149.  

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