ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20100517
Characterization of Service Received:  
Narrative Reason for Discharge:  
Authority for Discharge:  MARCORSEPMAN 

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to: 
	Narrative Reason change to: Type 1 from Type 4

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:	USMCR (DEP)	20040324 - 20040829  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  20040830	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Months
Date of Discharge:  20050331	Highest Rank:  
Length of Service:    Year(s)    Month(s)  01  Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  49
MOS:  9900
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):   () /  ()	Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  

Periods of CONF:  

NJP:  

- 20050223:	Article  (UA 1800, 20050213 - 0600, 20050215, 2 days)
	Awarded:    Suspended:  

SCM:  

SPCM:  

CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- 20050317:	For your diagnosed personality disorder.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

	  “2004  08  30”

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:		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 6203.3 CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 1 September 2001 until Present.

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 to reenlist in the U.S. Armed Forces.  
2.	Applicant contends unfair treatment from the School of Infantry staff contributed to the circumstances that led to his
	separation.
3.	Applicant contends inadequate leadership from his noncommissioned officers (NCOs) after his return from UA contributed to the circumstances that led to his separation.

Decision

Date:  20110919		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 conducted 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 warning for personality disorder (17 Mar 2005) and   for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (Unauthorized absence (UA), 2 days, 20050213-20050215, departed School of Infantry (SOI) and traveled to home of record in Miami, FL, terminated by his return to the School of Infantry).  Immediately after his return from UA, the Applicant expressed a suicidal ideation and was sent to the Naval Hospital mental health department (approx 15-22 Feb 2005) where he was subsequently diagnosed with Personality Disorder NOS (not otherwise specified) with anti-social and borderline features.  In the medical report, the physician documented the following: “patient stated he has not been able to sleep lately, complained of ‘nerves going crazy,’ and that he felt angry and confused because he is finding the USMC is too much for me.  Patient reported feeling the following for the past three weeks: frustrated, stressed-out, confused, an angry mood which has always been present; ‘not good’ enjoyment of life; diminished appetite; ‘I don’t sleep’ with middle and initial insomnia; psychomotor agitation; ‘I have no concentration’ with slowed thinking the past two years.”  He also endorsed experiencing the following, overlapping symptoms: feeling generally “worried and concerned” for much of his life; being unable to control his worrying; anxiety and worrying associated with restlessness, difficulty thinking, and feeling “confused”; feeling irritable and “stressed-out”; and poor sleep.  In the diagnosis portion of the report, the physician stated “the patient appeared to experience overlapping symptoms of anxiety and depression, neither of which appeared to readily fall into a clear diagnostic category.  He presented with maladaptive personality traits involving angry dyscontrol, mental confusion with odd thinking, and impulsivity.  He presented with moderate symptoms involving a dysphoric mood, confused thinking, and occupational difficulties.”  Within two weeks, the Applicant again expressed suicidal thoughts and had made cuts to his right forearm with a knife that resulted in admission to the mental health department for further evaluation.  Upon completion of the mental health evaluation, the psychologist determined that the Applicant “suffers from a long-standing personality disorder of character and behavior and of such severity that his ability to function effectively in the military is significantly impaired.  Individuals with this type of personality disorder tend to be unproductive and often consume considerable command attention and resources.  In addition, the patient is not considered mentally ill, he is responsible for his behavior, he is considered mentally competent, had adjusted poorly to the demands of military service, is unmotivated for continued military service, is at continued immediate risk to harm himself or others if retained in the military although not acutely suicidal or homicidal, and should not be allowed to handle weapons or engage in other potentially hazardous duties pending separation.”  Based on these findings, on 10 Mar 2005, the Commanding Officer of the Naval Hospital forwarded a recommendation to the Applicant’s Commanding Officer for expeditious administrative separation of the Applicant.  

Based on all the documentary evidence available to the command, to include the mental health evaluations and the UA offense, the Applicant’s command administratively processed him for separation in accordance with the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual (MARCORSEPMAN).  When notified of administrative separation processing using the  procedure on 17 Mar 2005, the Applicant waived  rights to consult with a qualified counsel and submit a written statement in rebuttal to the proposed separation.  Additionally, in his handwritten letter to his commanding officer (dated 17 Mar 2005), the Applicant stated, “For my health and safety I do not wish to be retained for training.”  The Applicant was separated from the Marine Corps on 31 Mar 2005 with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge due to Personality Disorder.

:  (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks to reenlist in the U.S. Armed Forces.  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 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.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends unfair treatment from the School of Infantry staff contributed to the circumstances that led to his separation.  The Applicant, in his testimony to the Board, provided details surrounding a series of three academic failures (written test and two practical application tests) that resulted in his being recycled to restart the School of Infantry training program course of instruction.  The Applicant admitted to not preparing properly for the written exam, but contended that the decisions to fail him on the following two practical application tests were unjust, and that the performance/procedural standards to which he was held were not evenly applied to all Marines being tested.  The Board, in deliberating on this issue, concluded that testing standards may have not been equally applied and could have varied slightly depending on which instructor proctored the practical application testing.  However, this does not excuse the Applicant for his misconduct (UA) or the mental health issues that subsequently were revealed after his return from UA.  Moreover, when queried about the circumstances, the Applicant could not remember or reference any attempt to use his chain of command to address his belief that he was wronged and therefore improperly recycled to restart SOI training.  Accordingly, the Board, after thorough examination and deliberation, determined this issue did not provide a basis for which relief could be granted.  Relief denied.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends inadequate leadership from his NCOs after his return from UA contributed to the circumstances that led to his separation.  The Applicant, in his testimony to the Board, contended that upon his return from unauthorized absence, the NCOs in his chain of command turned their backs on him and failed to provide the mentorship and guidance necessary for his success.  The Board asked the Applicant a series of questions regarding the command environment prior to and after his period of UA, and his attitude and mental state prior to and after the three academic event failures he experienced during SOI training.  Other than the Applicant’s testimony, the Board found no evidence to corroborate or refute the Applicant’s contention that he was mistreated or somehow neglected by school leadership.  For much of the time after his return from UA, the Applicant was either in the mental health department undergoing psychiatric evaluation or assigned to restriction and extra punishment duties after his punishment at NJP.  Further, the records contained a statement (dated 17 Mar 2005) from a Sergeant within SOI, Headquarters and Support Battalion, that said “in the few days that the Applicant has been under my charge, he has displayed no change in regards to his personality disorder.  He is apathetic to military life and mostly keeps to himself….”  After thorough examination of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s testimony, the Board determined this issue to be without merit and did not provide a basis for which relief could be granted.  Relief denied.

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   Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall   and the narrative reason for separation shall remain .

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