ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20120813
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)	20000525 - 20000709  	Active:		20000710 - 20040108  HON
				USMC	20040109 - 20070703  HON

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  20070704	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Months
Date of Discharge:  20090702	Highest Rank:  
Length of Service:    Year    Months  29  Days
Education Level:  	AFQT:  70
MOS:  3043/3432/8411
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):   () /  ()	Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	 (2)       (3) LoA (2) CoC MM (3)

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJP:  
- 20080326:	Article  (Failure to obey order or regulation, to wit: a direct written order given by the Commanding Officer, Recruiting Station Albuquerque)
	Awarded:    Suspended:  

SCM:     		SPCM:     		CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  
- 20080301:	Effective this date, you are assigned to probation under the provisions of StaO 1610 1A, Substandard Performance Order, for failure to meet the minimum standards required of a Marine Corps Recruiter.  After 16 months on duty and repeated training and guidance by both the command group and your NCOIC, your net APR has fallen to 1 06, below the CMC standard of 1 22 and below the RS standard of 1 55.  Over the past three months, your performance has continued to decline, resulting in a 90-day APR of 1 00.  You are directed to take immediate action to improve your net contracting APR.  You will be re-evaluated at the end of each month by the Commanding Officer to determine improvement in your deficiencies. 

- 20080416:	For your repeated refusal to return to duty as a canvassing recruiter.  Despite counseling by your NCOIC, the SgtMaj, and myself, including page 11 counseling and Non-Judicial Punishment for disobedience of an order to return to duty, you persist in the perception that as a Marine you have the authority to pick and choose the tasks you desire to accomplish.  Your refusal to perform the responsibilities required in your billet is prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the command, and adversely and directly affects this unit’s ability to accomplish its mission.  It is in both the command’s and your best interests for you to successfully complete your tour.  Completion of your tour here, however, is predicated on a good faith effort to complete the mission to which you have been assigned.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative errors on the original DD Form 214:

	  “CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 000710 UNTIL 070703”
	Block 28,  “UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE”

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 6206, UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, 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.  The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 92.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant contends his discharge was based on an isolated incident in 9 years of service with no other adverse action, and the misconduct was as a result of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

Decision

Date:  20130606		Location: Washington D.C.	 Representation: 

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

Discussion

As a result of the Applicant’s claim of PTSD, in accordance with U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 1553 (d)(1), the Naval Discharge Review Board included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist.  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 completion of a deployment to Ar Ramadi, Iraq between August 2004 and March 2005, conducting combat service support operations in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM.

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 Board did complete 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 warnings and   for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article  (Failure to obey order or regulation, to wit: a direct written order given by the Commanding Officer, Recruiting Station Albuquerque).  Based on the offense committed by the Applicant and his repeated refusals to conduct his duties,  command administratively processed  for separation.  When notified of administrative separation processing using the  procedure, the Applicant exercised  right to consult with a qualified counsel, but waived his rights to submit a written statement and request an administrative board.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends his discharge was based on an isolated incident in 9 years of service with no other adverse action, and the misconduct was as a result of PTSD.  The NDRB requested all records of medical treatment, both active duty and post-service, from the VA.  The records received from the VA failed to document any request for evaluation, any diagnosis, or any findings of PTSD or other mental health concerns.  Moreover, the Applicant did not provide any evidence of a diagnosis of PTSD from any other private mental health treatment provider to document his claim.  The NDRB found no evidence in the record of any indications of, or diagnosis for, PTSD.  Additionally, there is no evidence in either the Applicant’s service record, or the documentation he provided, that demonstrated any problems or symptoms manifesting during his enlistment from his service in Iraq.  In the Applicant’s commanding officer’s recommendation for administrative discharge, dated 24 February 2009, he stated the Applicant received evaluations from an Air Force clinical psychologist and a Navy psychologist, both of whom diagnosed the Applicant with anxiety disorder, the symptoms of which were valid but self-induced.  They further determined the Applicant “made a personal and conscious decision to refuse his duties and the symptoms were not directly responsible for his actions.”  Furthermore, the Applicant’s record does not document any attempts to seek help for any combat stress-related symptoms while in service.  After a complete review of the records, the NDRB determined PTSD did not mitigate or excuse his misconduct, which consisted of numerous refusals to conduct his duties as a recruiter.  Contrary to what the Applicant stated to the NDRB, his misconduct was not isolated.  Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses warrant separation from the  to maintain proper order and discipline.  Violation of Article 92 is one such offense that warrants processing for administrative separation regardless of grade, performance, or time in service.  This usually results in an unfavorable characterization of discharge or, at a maximum, a punitive discharge and possible confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial.  The Applicant’s command made numerous attempts to return the Applicant to recruiter duty, but the Applicant’s repeated refusals led his command to administratively discharge him.  Despite the gravity of this 

misconduct, his command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for the more lenient administrative discharge.  The NDRB found the characterization of the Applicant’s discharge was equitable and consistent with the characterization of discharge given others in similar circumstances.  Relief denied.

Summary:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service,  record entries, and discharge 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), 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