ex-, USMC 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20110922
Characterization of Service Received:  
Narrative Reason for Discharge:  
Authority for Discharge:  MARCORSEPMAN 

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to: 
	Narrative Reason change to: PTSD

Summary of Service
 
Prior Service:
Inactive:	USMCR (DEP)	20050329 - 20050509  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  20050510	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Months
Date of Discharge:  20070619	Highest Rank:  
Length of Service:    Year(s)    Month(s)  10  Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  75
MOS:  0331
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):   () /  ()	Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	NDSM ICM GWOTSM SSDR Rifle 

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJP:    		SCM:    		SPCM:    		CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- 20070221:	For lack of judgment, having been diagnosed by the Division Psychologist of having a personality disorder, due to not conducting yourself in the appropriate manner expected of a United States Marine.  

- 20070326:	For diagnosis of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder by the Mental Health Department evaluation letter of 20070323.    

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:	

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

Applicant’s Issues

Nondecisional Issue:  The Applicant seeks a change in the narrative reason for his discharge (Personality Disorder) in order to facilitate employment opportunities.

Decisional issues: The Applicant contends that his narrative reason (Personality Disorder) was improper.  The Applicant further states that he was also diagnosed with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), which existed prior to his entry into the service, but contends that his service in Iraq and subsequent diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder was the cause of the OCD.

Decision

Date:  20120308	   	   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 documented that since discharge, he has been diagnosed as suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) related to combat service in Iraq and is receiving a disability rating of 30% from the Department of Veterans Affairs.  The Applicant’s service records revealed that he completed a deployment as an Infantryman, participating in Operation IRAQI FREEDOM from January to August 2006 in the Al-Anbar Province of Iraq.  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 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 22-year-old enlistee, who enlisted in the Marine Corps on a four-year Infantry Option guarantee contract.  The Applicant enlisted without waiver to enlistment and induction standards.  The Applicant completed two years and one month of his four-year contractual obligation before being discharged.  Prior to his discharge, the Applicant completed a deployment as an Infantryman, participating in Operation IRAQI FREEDOM from January to August 2006 in the Al-Anbar Province of Iraq.  The Applicant’s record of service documents that the Applicant received no nonjudicial or judicial punishments for any violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) while in service.  However, 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 his diagnosis of a Personality Disorder by the Division Psychiatrist (21 Feb 2007) and for a diagnosis of OCD (26 Mar 2007).  The Applicant’s record documents that an appropriately credentialed mental health care provider diagnosed the Applicant with a Personality Disorder and recommended separation.  In addition, the Applicant was also diagnosed later with OCD, pre-dating his entry into the military service.  The Applicant was referred by his chain of command and Medical Officer for evaluation while deployed in Iraq due to his inability to remain focused and properly function with his unit.  The evaluation specified that the Applicant manifested behaviors and symptoms consistent with a personality disorder that was unlikely to improve in the military environment and that the command should consider separation based on the diagnosis of Personality Disorder (Borderline).  The Applicant was appropriately counseled on this recommendation for separation and was provided an opportunity to take corrective action before he was recommended for separation.  At that time, the Applicant provided informed consent of the diagnosis and the proposed treatment and recommendations of the attending Psychiatrist.  On 19 June 2007, the Applicant was discharged from the Naval Service with an HONORABLE characterization of his service.  The involuntary discharge action was based on a diagnosed personality disorder rendering the member incapable of serving adequately in military service - in any capacity - in accordance with paragraph 6203.3 of the MARCORSEPMAN.  The same Psychiatrist also diagnosed the Applicant as having OCD prior to his discharge.  During the discharge process, the Applicant was afforded an opportunity to be evaluated for PTSD; the Applicant chose, in writing, to not be evaluated.  As such, the Applicant was discharged.

(Non-decisional Issue)  The Applicant seeks a change in his narrative reason for discharge in order to facilitate employment opportunities.  This is an issue which the NDRB cannot form the basis of relief for the Applicant, or  the NDRB does not have the authority to grant the relief for which the Applicant has petitioned.  There is no requirement, or law, that grants re-characterization solely on the issue of facilitating employment opportunities.  Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing educational opportunities or access to VA benefits programs.  Regulations strictly limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and the equity of a discharge.  As such, this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the NDRB can grant relief.

(Decisional Issues) ()  .  The Applicant contends that his reason for discharge (Personality Disorder) was improper.  The Applicant states that he was also diagnosed with OCD, which existed prior to his entry into the service, but contends that his service in Iraq and subsequent diagnosis of PTSD was the cause of the OCD.

Propriety - The Applicant contends that his narrative reason for discharge (Personality Disorder) was improper.  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: (1) that disorder is so severe that one’s ability to function effectively and perform their duties is significantly impaired and (2), the individual poses a threat to the safety or well being of themselves or others.  An appropriately credentialed mental health care provider evaluated the Applicant with a Personality Disorder (Borderline).  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 recommended that the command consider separation due to the risk to safety of both the Applicant and others around him and the likelihood that the condition would continue to impair his ability to serve.  As such, the record of evidence reflects the Applicant met the requirements for administrative separation due to Convenience of the Government (Personality Disorder).  The Applicant waived his right to an evaluation for possible PTSD during the discharge process.  Confusing the Applicant’s discharge action is the fact that the diagnosing psychiatrist also diagnosed the Applicant with OCD, which existed prior to entry into military service.  For discharge, this condition (OCD) requires a medical board finding and referral to the Department of the Navy Physical Evaluation Board for a determination of retention or separation and any medical disability liability.  The Applicant was not discharged pursuant to the OCD diagnosis, but was discharged for his manifested personality disorder as documented by the appropriately credentialed mental health care provider.  The NDRB requested the Applicant’s in-service medical records and any post-service Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical treatment records; the records were not able to be located for review.  As such, the NDRB presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs in that the Applicant was properly diagnosed and that the diagnosing Psychiatrist differentiated the two diagnoses.  As such, the record of evidence reflects the Applicant met the requirements for administrative separation due to Convenience of the Government (Personality Disorder) and a change based on matters of priority is not warranted.
 
Equity - The Applicant states that he was also diagnosed with OCD, which existed prior to his entry into the service, but contends that his service in Iraq and subsequent diagnosis of PTSD was the cause of the OCD.  As part of the Applicant’s legal rights accorded during the administrative discharge process, the Applicant provided a written and signed affidavit to the Separation Authority.  In this document, the Applicant attested to the fact that he was diagnosed with OCD by his hometown physician before enlisting; that he was aware of the diagnosis; and that the physician advised against his enlistment because his condition would eventually prevent him from successfully performing his duties.  The Applicant further stated that he decided not to disclose this information to the service during his enlistment process and stated that he knew immediately that he had made a mistake - when he arrived at Recruit Training his mind was not allowing him to perform, and every day was a struggle.  This documented statement validated that the Applicant had fraudulently enlisted into the military service and warranted separation with consideration for a less than honorable characterization of service.  The Command chose not to pursue the fraudulent enlistment issue and the lesser characterization of service and approved the separation for Convenience of the Government (Personality Disorder) with an Honorable characterization of service.  The NDRB determined this issue to be without merit based on the Applicant’s written and signed statement regarding his conditions.  As such, no change is warranted.

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.

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) (1) and (d) (2).

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