ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20120228
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)	20020826 - 20021208  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  20021209	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Months
Date of Discharge:  20050517	Highest Rank:  
Length of Service:    Year(s)    Month(s)  09  Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  54
MOS:  0311
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):   () /  ()	Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle      SSDR

Periods of UA/CONF:  UA:  20050404-20050408, 5 days; 20050506-20050508, 3 days / CONF:  

NJP:  

- 20050509:	Article  (Absence without leave, 2 specifications)
	Specification 1: Failure to go to appointed place of duty, to wit:  formation 
	Specification 2: Failure to go to appointed place of duty, to wit:  exceeding the 30-mile liberty limit while on high risk liberty program
	Article  (Failure to obey order or regulation)
	Awarded:     Suspended:  

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

1.  The Applicant seeks an upgrade to facilitate access to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) educational benefits.

Decision

Date:  20120510	    	    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 and reason for discharge; the Applicant was discharged for a Personality Disorder.  In review of the Applicant’s medical records to verify the diagnosis, it was determined that he has also been diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) by the VA, post-discharge.  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 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 did not identify any issues related to the equity or propriety of his discharge for consideration by the NDRB; however, 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 19-year-old who enlisted in the Marine Corps 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).  The Applicant completed two years and five months of his four-year contractual obligation.  Prior to his discharge, the Applicant completed one deployment as an Infantryman, participating in Operation Enduring Freedom in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan.  The military service record further documents that he was awarded the Combat Action Ribbon for his individual actions against opposing forces.  The Applicant’s record of service documents one nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (Absence without leave, unauthorized absence, 2 specifications) and Article 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation).  Additionally, the record of service documents two other periods of unauthorized absence, which were not adjudicated.  The Applicant’s service record does not document any Paragraph 6105 retention-counseling warnings for annotated deficiencies in his performance or conduct.  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 anti-social features, and recommended an expeditious separation due to him being a danger to himself and others, continued active suicidal tendencies, and a disregard for personal conduct.  The diagnosis and treatment followed multiple evaluations, which included a referral for evaluation by his chain of command while deployed in Afghanistan when he refused to continue on a combat operation and threatened to harm himself because he was “done with the Corps.”  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.  Furthermore, the Personality Disorder was a long-standing character disorder that was well documented in his clinical evaluation work-ups with Division Psychiatry.  The Applicant’s continued thoughts of suicide, disregard for personal conduct, and his adamant requirement to be with his girlfriend on the farm, regardless of the consequences, coupled with his inability to tolerate the Marine Corps any longer, warranted expeditious processing.  At that time, the Applicant provided informed consent of the diagnosis, the proposed treatment for symptom management, and the requirements for follow-up counseling.  As such, 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 Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual (MARCORSEPMAN) - Convenience of the Government, Personality Disorder.  

Issue 1: (Nondecisional Issue)  The Applicant seeks an upgrade to facilitate eligibility for VA educational benefits.  There is no requirement, or law, that grants re-characterization solely on the issue of facilitating access to VA benefits.  Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing educational opportunities or employment opportunities.  Regulations limit the NDRB’s review solely 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. 
NDRB Issue ()  The Applicant did not identify any issues related to the equity or propriety of his discharge for consideration by the NDRB; however, 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.

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 (Not otherwise specified, with anti-social features).  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).  The diagnosis considered the Applicant’s current psychological issues and his demonstrated inability to conform to the military environment.  The Applicant’s service record also documents his performance and conduct-related issues throughout his service, both while deployed in Afghanistan and while at home station in a garrison environment that included one NJP with other numerous unadjudicated periods of unauthorized absence and missing a unit deployment for training.  The Applicant received a compensation and pension exam mental health evaluation related to claims of PTSD after his discharge.  He was evaluated and is now receiving treatment from the VA.  The VA specifically evaluated the Applicant for PTSD and made a finding of PTSD, combat-related, 50% disabling.  Having reviewed the documentation of record, the NDRB determined that the clearly diagnosed Personality Disorder was differentiated from any combat-related PTSD; as such, it was proper and equitable as issued and does not warrant change.  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 evidence reviewed did not persuade the NDRB that the diagnosis and subsequent administrative separation were either improper or inequitable.

Equity: 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 Applicant’s nonjudicial punishment, unauthorized absences, and missing unit movements 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.

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 15 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