ex-, USMC
  
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20110302
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)	20011017 - 20020915  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  20020916	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Months
Date of Discharge:  20040805	Highest Rank:  
Length of Service:    Year(s)    Month(s)  20  Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  58
MOS:  1371
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):   () /  ()	Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle , GWOTSM, , , CAR, ACM (w/ one campaign star)

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJP:  	SCM:  	SPCM:  	  CC:  	Retention Warning Counseling:  

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.

C.  U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 1553 (d)

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

Applicant’s Issues

Decisional issues:  The Applicant seeks a change to the Narrative Reason for Separation (Personality Disorder), contending that the Personality Disorder, as diagnosed, was in fact Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which was not identified by the treating physicians.

Decision

Date:  20120322	       	Location: Washington D.C.	 Representation: 

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

Discussion

The NDRB reviewed the Applicant’s personal statement; the Applicant contends that he was suffering from PTSD resultant from his combat deployment.  As such, in accordance with U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 1553 (d) (1), the NDRB included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist.  Additionally, in accordance with section 1553 (d) (2), the service secretary expedited a final decision and accorded the case sufficient priority to achieve an expedited resolution.  The Applicant’s service record documents deployment to Afghanistan in support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM.  The military service record further documents that he was awarded the Afghanistan Campaign Medal for his period of service and the Combat Action Ribbon for his individual actions.

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 NDRB 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 issue related to the propriety of his discharge for consideration by the NDRB; additionally, the NDRB completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge, and the discharge process, to ensure the discharge met the pertinent standards of both equity and propriety.  

The Applicant was an 18-year-old enlistee, enlisting in the Marine Corps on a four-year Construction/Utilities Option guarantee training contract.  The Applicant enlisted with waivers to enlistment and induction standards due to pre-service illegal drug usage (marijuana), a pre-service civilian arrest for possession of marijuana, and a pre-service underage alcohol-related misdemeanor assault.  The Applicant completed 1 year and 10 months of his four-year contractual obligation.  Prior to his discharge, the Applicant had deployed as a Combat Engineer, participating in Operation ENDURING FREEDOM (Afghanistan).  The Applicant’s record of service does not document any nonjudicial or judicial punishment for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) while in the service.  However, the Applicant’s record of service and medical records document that appropriately credentialed mental health care providers diagnosed the Applicant with a severe Personality Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified (with Cluster B and Immature Features) and that he was recommended for an expeditious separation due to continued risk of harm to himself and to others.  The Applicant’s service record and medical record document the identification, diagnosis, treatment, and eventual recommendation for separation, including multiple mental health evaluations and clinical treatments throughout the process.  The diagnostic evaluation stated that the Applicant had manifested behaviors and symptoms consistent with a Personality Disorder that pre-dated the Applicant’s enlistment, was unlikely to improve in the military environment, and that the Applicant’s command should consider an expeditious separation based on the diagnosis of Personality Disorder.  At that time, the Applicant provided informed consent of the diagnosis, the proposed treatment for symptom management, and the requirements for follow-up counseling.  On 08 August 2004, the Applicant was discharged from the Marine Corps with an Honorable characterization of service.  The involuntary discharge action was based on a diagnosed Personality Disorder of such severity as to render the member incapable of serving adequately in military service - in any capacity - in accordance with paragraph 6203.3 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual (MARCORSEPMAN) (Convenience of the Government, Personality Disorder).

(Decisional Issues) ()  .  The Applicant seeks a change in the Narrative Reason for his discharge action (Personality Disorder), contending that the Personality Disorder, as diagnosed, was in fact PTSD, which was not identified by the treating physicians.  Pursuant to paragraph 6203.3 of the MARCORSEPMAN, a service member may be processed for separation based on a Mental Health Care Professional’s clinical diagnosis of a Personality Disorder when that disorder is so severe that one’s ability to function effectively and perform their duties is significantly impaired, and the individual poses a threat to the safety or well being of themselves or others.  Appropriately credentialed mental health care providers evaluated the Applicant with a severe Personality Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified (with Cluster B and Immature Features).  The diagnostic evaluation stated that the Applicant had manifested behaviors and symptoms consistent with a Personality Disorder of such severity as to render the member incapable of serving adequately in military service - in any capacity.  This condition was further determined to be unlikely to improve in the military environment and that the command should consider an expeditious separation due to the risk to safety of both the Applicant and others around him.  As such, the record of evidence reflects the Applicant met the requirements for administrative separation due to Convenience of the Government (Personality Disorder).

The NDRB requested, and reviewed, the Applicant’s in-service medical record and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) post-service record of medical treatment.  The Applicant was in his third month of deployment to Afghanistan when he sought assistance from his chain of command.  This request for assistance was due to “personal issues” that he related to a strong fear and anxiousness about performing certain aspects of his job; an inability to sleep due to worrying about issues back at home regarding his spouse; and a fear of dying by “stepping on a landmine.”  These issues, in total, he stated, were affecting his ability to concentrate at his job and he feared might place Marines at risk.  The Applicant identified to his chain of command that he had a history of problems with anxiousness and worrying.  Given these circumstances, his chain of command removed him from his combat duties and referred him to the Chaplain and then to the Medical Officer; the Applicant was referred for evaluation by a psychiatrist at a rear area camp.  In this evaluation, the Applicant complained of increased anxiety and mood swings, that he had been dealing with these problems since childhood, and that they were getting much worse over the past 3 months.  Based on the recommendations of the treating psychiatrist, the Applicant was returned to his unit after feeling better, but was retained on the base camp conducting general clerical duties until the unit redeployed to CONUS.  The Applicant redeployed to CONUS on or about May 2004.  

On 12 July 2004, the Applicant sought counseling for emotional problems, reporting excessive anxiety and long-standing fits of rage and mood swings.  On 13 July 2004, the Applicant was seen by the 2d Marine Division Psychiatrist for further evaluation of anxiety, anger, and mood swings.  The Applicant’s mental health treatment record documents that he was feeling “better,” that he wanted to complete his enlistment honorably, but that he stated he will get worse if he has to deploy again.  The treatment records further document that the Applicant admitted to extensive, unreported, pre-service drug use - marijuana daily from age 14 to 18, which included experimentation with LSD, Cocaine, and Mushrooms.  These undisclosed uses were in addition to his arrest for possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia, which he had disclosed and received a waiver to enlist.  The Applicant further documented a difficult upbringing with a history of fights in school, a family history of mental illness, and a history of family alcohol and drug abuse and dependence and divorce.  The Applicant was provided a treatment plan, was diagnosed with a long standing Personality Disorder, and was recommended for administrative separation expeditiously.

Since discharge, the Applicant’s record documents that the VA has provided treatment.  On 10 February 2010, the Applicant received a Compensation and Pension exam disability rating decision from the VA regarding his requests for service-connected compensation; this rating decision included a detailed explanation of how the VA determined each of their rating decisions in regards to each of the Applicant’s claims.  Based on in-service mental health treatment notes, coupled with post-service private treatment records, the VA determined that the Applicant’s claim of PTSD was a Generalized Anxiety Disorder, PTSD, and a Personality Disorder.  The examiner specifically stated that it was difficult to say with certainty, but that the anxiety pattern appears to be an extension/continuation of previous anxiety disorder, possibly compounded by inability to treat insomnia plus the emergence of depression and PTSD symptoms.  The clinical decision was Generalized Anxiety disorder with a 30% disability rating, service-connected.

A credentialed Mental Health Care Provider properly diagnosed the Applicant while in service; the diagnosis considered the Applicant’s current psychological issues and his demonstrated inability to conform to a military environment.  The Applicant’s medical record further documents his performance and conduct related issues throughout his service and pre-service, which warranted separation administratively.  Given the Applicant’s performance and conduct issues since enlistment, coupled with his inability to conform, the Separation Authority determined that the discharge recommendation of Personality Disorder was appropriate and that continued retention was not warranted.  The statements provided by the Applicant were not sufficient to overturn the presumption that the Applicant was diagnosed properly with a Personality Disorder.  The evidence reviewed did not persuade the NDRB that this diagnosis and subsequent administrative separation were either improper or inequitable.  As such, the NDRB determined that the original diagnosis of Personality Disorder was proper and was accurate at the time of issuance and does remain the proper narrative reason as to why the Applicant was involuntarily discharged from the military service.  Relief denied.

Summary:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, medical and service record entries, and discharge process, the NDRB determined   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), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 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