ex-, USMC 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20110623
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)	19960228 - 19960407  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  19960408	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Months
Date of Discharge:  19970814	Highest Rank:  
Length of Service:    Year(s)    Month(s)   07  Day(s)
Education Level:  GED (with college credits)	AFQT:  69
MOS:  0352
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):   () /  ()	Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle , , 

Periods of CONF:  

NJP:  

- 19970311:	Article  (Unauthorized Absence from USS ESSEX (LHD- 2) while deployed overseas (Australia) from 2359, 19970307 to 0630, 19970308)
	Article 92: (Failure to obey lawful order or regulation - violation of Ship Liberty Policy)
	Awarded:    Suspended:  

- 19970604:	Article  (Insubordinate conduct to NCOs and SNCOs)
	Article  (Failure to obey lawful order from an NCO)
	Article  (Wrongfully using provoking words to a SNCO)
	Article  (Wrongfully communicate a threat to a SNCO)
	Awarded: ,   Suspended:  

SCM:  	SPCM:  	CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- 19970522:	For your lack of ability to follow orders, contempt toward authority, and poor attitude.

- 19970716:	For your demonstrated inability to adapt to the stressful environment of an infantry battalion.  You have been identified as having a schizotypal personality disorder, resulting in paranoia and poor impulse control.  Because of this disorder, you have been found unfit for further military service

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

Decisional issues: (1) The Applicant seeks an upgrade to an Honorable characterization of his service at discharge contending that his Personality Disorder diagnosis was in fact Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which was not identified by the treating physicians and that his service throughout was honorable.  (2) The Applicant contends that his misconduct of record was the result of stress from depression and anxiety related to PTSD, which warrants consideration as extenuating and mitigating factors to his discharge and the characterization of service he received.

Decision

Date:  20120308	 	Location: Washington D.C.	 Representation: 

By a vote of  the Characterization of service shall  .
By a vote of  the Narrative Reason for discharge shall  .

Discussion

The NDRB reviewed the Applicant’s personal statement; the Applicant contends that he was suffering from PTSD related to operational “combat” deployments.  As such, in accordance with U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 1553 (d) (1), the board 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 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 two issues related to the equity 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 a 26-year-old enlistee, who enlisted in the Naval Service as a Marine on a four-year Infantry Option guarantee contract.  The Applicant enlisted with one waiver to enlistment and induction standards due to pre-service illegal drug usage (marijuana, cocaine, and amphetamines).  The Applicant completed one year and four months of his four-year contractual obligation.  Prior to his discharge, the Applicant completed two deployments as an Infantryman, participating in Operation VIGILANT SENTINEL and Operation SOUTHERN WATCH in the North Arabian Gulf region in 1996 and 1997.  The military service record further documents that he was awarded the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal for his service.  

The Applicant’s record of service documents two nonjudicial punishments for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): specifically, Article 86 (Absence without leave; unauthorized absence); Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward a Noncommissioned Officer and Staff Noncommissioned Officer); Article 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation); Article 117 (Provoking speech or gestures); and Article 134 (Wrongfully communicating a threat).  Additionally, the Applicant was twice counseled formally in accordance with paragraph 6105 (retention-warning counseling) of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual (MARCORSEPMAN) for annotated deficiencies in his performance and conduct (related to NJP and personality disorder diagnosis).  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 (Schizotypal) and recommended expeditious separation.  The diagnosis and treatment followed multiple evaluations, which included a referral for evaluation by his platoon sergeant due to observed “bizarre behavior.”  The diagnostic evaluation stated that the Applicant has manifested behaviors and symptoms consistent with a personality disorder that was unlikely to improve in the military environment and that the 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 14 August 1997, the Applicant was discharged from the Naval Service with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of his 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 MARCORSEPMAN.  

(Decisional Issues) ()  .  (1) The Applicant seeks an upgrade to an Honorable characterization of his service at discharge contending that his Personality Disorder diagnosis was in fact PTSD which was not identified by the treating physicians and that his service throughout was honorable.  (2) The Applicant contends that his misconduct of record was the result of stress from depression and anxiety related to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which warrants consideration as extenuating and mitigating factors to his discharge and the characterization of service he received.

Propriety - 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 (Schizotypal Personality Disorder).  The diagnostic evaluation stated that the Applicant has 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).

Equity - The Applicant seeks an upgrade to an Honorable characterization of his service at discharge contending that his Personality Disorder diagnosis was in fact PTSD which was not identified by the treating physicians and that his service throughout was honorable.  The NDRB requested, and reviewed, the Applicant’s service medical record and VA medical treatment records.  The Applicant participated in documented contingency operations, which meet the requirements for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) combat consideration.  On 26 August 2010, the Applicant received a compensation and pension exam mental health evaluation related to claims of PTSD.  He was evaluated and is now receiving treatment from the VA.  The VA specifically evaluated the Applicant for PTSD and made a finding of no diagnosis for PTSD; his current mental health diagnosis is Intermittent Explosive Disorder, Depression (not otherwise specified) and alcohol abuse.  As such, the NDRB determined that the contention of PTSD as a mitigating factor is without merit.
  
A credentialed Mental Health Care Provider properly diagnosed the Applicant; the diagnosis considered the Applicant’s current psychological issues and his demonstrated inability to conform to military environment.  The Applicant’s service record also documents his performance and conduct related issues throughout his service (2 NJPs), which warranted separation administratively for Misconduct - Pattern of Misconduct (paragraph 6210.3) and Misconduct - Commission of a Serious Offense (paragraph 6210.6).  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.  Relief denied

An Honorable characterization of service is warranted when the quality of a member’s service meets the standard of acceptable conduct and performance for naval personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization of service would be clearly inappropriate.  A General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service is appropriate if the member’s service has been honest and faithful, but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of his record.  The NDRB determined that the Applicant’s service was honest and faithful but that the evidence of record, including the Applicant’s inability to conform to expected military standards of comportment as demonstrated by his nonjudicial punishments, were significant negative aspects that did outweigh the positive aspects of his record.  Accordingly, the NDRB determined that the awarded characterization of the Applicant’s service at discharge was proper, was equitable, and that a change is not warranted and would not be appropriate.  Accordingly, the Applicant’s petition for relief is 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