ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20100311
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)	19930331 - 19931031  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  19931101	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Months
Date of Discharge:  19960702	Highest Rank:  
Length of Service:    Year(s)    Month(s)  02  Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  84
MOS:  0131
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):   () /  ()	Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  Pistol   

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJP:  	SCM:  	SPCM:  	CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  
- 19960416:	For behavior which led to my being medically evaluated as having a personality disorder.  Conduct of this nature is unacceptable.

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):	20070315
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:	MD06-00831
NDRB Documentary Review Findings:		Discharge be changed to Honorable.

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 contends his discharge was improper because pertinent requirements of Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual (MARCORSEPMAN) chapter 6203 were not adhered to.
2.	Applicant contends there was no mental health evaluation and therefore, the separation basis of personality disorder was improper.

Decision

Date:  20110516		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 two decisional issues for the Board’s consideration.  The Board did note that documentation was missing from the record to include: report of mental health evaluation/diagnosis, medical and/or mental health authority recommendation regarding suitability for retention, Para 6105 retention warning(s) addressing specific behavior or conduct deficiencies and the recommendations for corrective action, notification of processing for administrative separation, acknowledgment of notification for administrative separation processing, and rights acknowledgment form.  The NDRB 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 counseling retention warning.  The available records reflect the Applicant was administratively processed for separation due to “paranoid personality disorder.”  The records contained the Staff Judge Advocate Review and the Separation Authority’s decision memoranda directing separation of the Applicant, but none of the endorsements or justifying documentation as required by the MARCORSEPMAN.  Additionally, the NDRB did not have the Applicant’s administrative separation package to determine if the Applicant was properly notified of pending administrative separation processing or if he was afforded the opportunity to elect or waive his rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review.

Issues 1-2:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends his discharge was improper because pertinent requirements of MARCORSEPSMAN chapter 6203 were not adhered to, including a definitive mental health evaluation and the requisite separation recommendation to provide a basis for discharge due to personality disorder.  Upon thorough examination of the Applicant’s service and medical records, it was clear to the Board that the Applicant did have ongoing issues coping with stress and chronic insomnia.  The record contains a Para 6105 retention warning that references a diagnosis of a personality disorder.  However, the records do not conclusively specify the details of the personality disorder, the extent to which the disorder affected the Applicant’s ability to perform his duties and/or justification that would warrant separation from service, the requisite retention warning counseling to address specific deficiencies to be corrected, and the required corrective action, nor the recommendations from competent mental health or medical authority regarding the Applicant’s suitability for retention or medical justification for separation from service.  Moreover, the records did not reveal the conclusive nonmedical evidence required to separate a Marine under MARCORSEPMAN chapter 6203.3.  Accordingly, after thorough careful consideration and deliberation on the facts and circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s discharge, the Board found that the separation was improper.  Partial relief warranted.  Full relief was not granted because the Applicant requested a change to an Uncharacterized discharge, which is not authorized since he served more than 180 days.

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

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