ex-, USMC 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20101019
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)	20060615 - 20060710  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  20060711	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Months
Date of Discharge:  20090326	Highest Rank:  
Length of Service:    Year(s)    Month(s)  09  Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  43
MOS:  0341
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):   () /  ()	Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle   (w/1 campaign star)    

Periods of UA/CONF:  UA 20070305 - 20070511 (67 days)		CONF:  

NJP:  
- 20070603:	Article  (Absent from his parent unit 20070305-20070511, 67 days, surrendered) 
	Awarded:  (to E-2)     Suspended:  

- 20080926:	Article  (Absence without leave, from his parent command 0700-1600, 20080906)
	Awarded:      Suspended:  FOP RESTR EPD (suspend 6 months) 

SCM:  		SPCM:  	CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- 20080714:	For SNM was not at the rifle range, his appointed place of duty, stated he woke up late, due to this he did not make it in time to draw his weapon and missed the transportation to the range and was dropped from the rifle range detail.  This sort of behavior is unacceptable and is punishable under the UCMJ, Articles 86 and 92.
- 20080926:	For your recent Company level NJP for violation of Article 86 IAW MCO P1400.32d par 1204.4J.   

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

	  “(67) 20070305-20070511”
	
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 contends his discharge was improper due to his mental health issues and relevant physician recommendations that were not considered by his command.

Decision

Date:  20120119		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 counseling retention warnings for missing rifle range detail (14 Jul 2008) and receiving NJP for unauthorized absence (26 Sep 2008).  The record also reflected   for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article  (Absence without leave, 2 specifications: 5 Mar 2007 to 11 May 2007, 67 days; and 6 Sep 2008, 0700-1600, 1 day).  On 18 May 2007, the Applicant was seen by Battalion Aid Station (BAS) staff due to his complaints of depression.  The report stated, “(the Applicant) states for the past year he has struggled with feelings of depressed mood intermittently but recently his symptoms have “intensified” and been confusing for the past two months.  He complains of decreased sleep (3 hrs/night), decreased appetite, decreased energy, no ability to concentrate and (unreadable)…current stressors include his mother’s recent diagnosis of breast cancer, estrangement from his fiancée, and the recent suicide (1 month ago) of a close friend.  Patient became so bothered that he went UA and just recently returned to his unit.  Past history significant for depression for which he was admitted for as a child (age 8 or 9).  Father: mother/father with depression, brother with bipolar mood disorder.”  The NDRB noted that the records seem to indicate that the Applicant’s command chose or failed to pursue administrative separation of the Applicant for fraudulent enlistment (Applicant answered “no” to questions on his report of medical history questionnaire dated 15 Jun 2006, “Have you had or do you now have”: 17e) Received counseling of any type?; 17f) Depression or Excessive worry?).

The Applicant was deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom from Jul 2007 to Feb 2008.  Within months after return from deployment, the Applicant was evaluated by mental health providers and initially diagnosed with Personality Disorder NOS (not otherwise specified) in Jun 2008.  On 8 Aug 2008, after further evaluation, the Applicant was diagnosed as: AXIS I -- Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood; AXIS II -- Maladaptive traits; R/O Personality Disorder (Principal Dx Schizoid PD).  The Applicant was found fit for duty and referred for follow-up psychiatric treatment and long-term fitness for duty assessment.  Based on numerous performance and conduct deficiencies and the personality disorder diagnosis, the Applicant’s Commanding Officer processed him for administrative separation in accordance with the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual (MARCORSEPSMAN).  When notified of administrative separation processing using the  procedure on 7 Nov 2008, the Applicant initially  his rights to consult with a qualified counsel and submit a written statement.  However, he subsequently submitted a written statement to the General Court-Martial Convening Authority, which stated, “First off I would like to thank you for letting me serve in your division.  I feel that my services are no longer needed here in this division and the Marine Corps.  I strongly believe that if I stay in the Marines it would be bad for my mental health and well being, due to the simple fact that I cannot adjust to the Marine Corps as run by my chain of command.  If I was to stay it would drive me even more mad and upset and that I would be a liability to myself and the other Marines.  I feel getting out of the USMC is the only option for me due to the simple fact I cannot cope with the way I get treated and talked to.  For example, I am a 25 year old man getting treated and talked to like a little 2 year old kid.  I strongly feel that if someone yells or treats me with disrespect they should get the same treatment.  But that’s wrong in the Marines and that drives me crazy.  Also, I cannot cope with getting underpaid for the line of work I do.  The thing is sir is that the older I am getting the less 

interested I am getting to play the game of getting over worked, under paid and getting treated like a kid.  And these things have driven me to get administratively separated with mental health problems.  Thank you for your time.”  After considering the facts and circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s record of service, mental health and potential for future service, the Separation Authority directed that the Applicant be separated from the Marine Corps with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge due to Personality Disorder.  The discharge was carried out on 26 Mar 2009.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends his discharge was improper due to his mental health issues and relevant physician recommendations that were not considered by his command.  The NDRB conducted a detailed examination of the Applicant’s records and could find no evidence of command impropriety.  Moreover, the Board noted that the Applicant, within two months of checking into his first command, absented himself from his unit for 67 days.  Violations of UCMJ Article 86 (Unauthorized absence) in excess of 30 days are considered “commission of a serious offense” and punishable by up to one year of confinement and a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) or Dishonorable Discharge (DD), if adjudicated at trial by courts-martial.  The Applicant’s command chose not to refer him to trial but instead opted to adjudicate the matter at NJP and retain him.  After the NJP proceeding, the Applicant admitted to medical providers that he was admitted for depression when he was approximately 8 or 9 years old.  This fact could have resulted in the Applicant being charged with fraudulent enlistment (violation of UCMJ Article 83), which is also considered “commission of a serious offense” and is punishable by up to two years of confinement and a BCD or DD discharge.  Again, his command chose not to refer him for trial.  On 19 Nov 2008, the Applicant’s Commanding Officer submitted his endorsement for administrative separation of the Applicant to the Separation Authority.  Comments within the endorsement included the following: “(The Applicant) has performed his duties in an unsatisfactory manner while assigned to Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 1st Marines.  The statements provided by his chain of command clearly describe (the Applicant) as a Marine who has no concern for his fellow Marines, a lack of ambition and desire to remain a Marine…Since arriving (to 1st Battalion, 1st Marines), his reliability has been questioned on several occasions, and he is unable to be trusted with the most monotonous of tasks.  On 7 Aug 2008, (the Applicant) was admitted to Naval Hospital Camp Pendleton Mental Health Clinic due to feeling unable to carry out duties required and expected of him.  In addition to depressive anxiety and depression symptoms, multiple maladaptive personality traits are evident that are incompatible with continued service in the Marine Corps.  If he continues with his everyday routine, he can be a danger to himself and others when faced with challenges given to him in a combat environment…(The Applicant) has proven that he is unable to act in accordance with our Marine Corps tenets of Honor, Courage, and Commitment and as such his retention in the Marine Corps would be harmful to good order and discipline.”

When a Marine’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service under Honorable conditions.  A General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge is warranted when a Marine’s service has been honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance outweighs positive aspects of the member’s military record.  The Applicant’s conduct (to include a 67-day period of UA), which forms the primary basis for determining the character of service, reflects the Applicant failed to meet the requirements of conduct expected of all Marines, regardless of grade and length of service.  After careful consideration of and deliberation on the facts and circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s administrative separation from the Marine Corps, the NDRB found the discharge to be proper and equitable, and in accordance with the applicable orders and directives in effect at the time of his separation.  In fact, the NDRB found that the Applicant’s command was extremely lenient in not prosecuting him more harshly after his 67-day UA.  Accordingly, 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 .  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 for additional information.

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