ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20131023
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)	20000828 - 20001022  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  20001023	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Months
Date of Discharge:  20011130	Highest Rank:  
Length of Service:    Year(s)    Month(s)  08  Day(s)
Education Level:  UNABLE TO DETERMINE	AFQT:  50
MOS:  3043
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):  /	Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle 

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, 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.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant contends she was under duress and coerced into accepting a General characterization during a time when she was grieving the sudden death of her father.
2.    The Applicant contends her discharge was a rush to judgment and believes it was without a chance to review her situation and to ask her what was in the best interests of the Marine Corps and herself.
3.    The Applicant contends her discharge occurred without representation of her interests, and she felt she was taken advantage of at a vulnerable time.
4.    The Applicant contends her discharge was based on an incorrect diagnosis from a single doctor during boot camp.
5.    The Applicant contends the Narrative Reason for Separation (Block 28) on her DD Form 214 should be omitted or deleted as it is her right under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
Decision

Date:  20140501		Location: Washington D.C.	 Representation: 

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

Discussion

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 no 6105 counseling warnings and no misconduct resulting in nonjudicial punishment or court-martial.  Based upon competent medical authority diagnosing the Applicant with a severe Borderline Personality Disorder, her command initiated administrative discharge processing.  When notified of administrative separation processing using the  procedure, the Applicant   rights to consult with a qualified counsel and submit a written statement.

Issues 1-3:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends she was under duress and coerced into accepting a General characterization during a time when she was grieving the sudden death of her father.  She also contends her discharge was a rush to judgment and believes it was without a chance to review her situation and to ask her what was in the best interests of the Marine Corps and herself.  Further, the Applicant contends her discharge occurred without representation of her interests, and she felt she was taken advantage of at a vulnerable time.  The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs.  The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support her issue.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that she was under duress and coerced into accepting a General discharge, that there was a rush to judgment, or that the discharge occurred without a representation of her interests.  The record also contained no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Applicant’s commanding officer or anyone else in the discharge process.  The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.  A detailed review of the Applicant’s records shows her chain of command at Recruit Training Command, Marine Combat Training Battalion, and Headquarters Battalion, 2nd Marine Division provided significant assistance, support, and counseling during her 13 months of service to help her succeed as a Marine.  Despite repeated attempts and multiple mental health counselings since her father’s death 10 months before her discharge, the Applicant “has not made the basic necessary steps to improve herself, nor does she even demonstrate the desire to do so” and “has demonstrated no desire to succeed,” according to the Supply Officer of Headquarters Battalion, 2nd Marine Division.  The Applicant’s statement on her DD Form 293 detail repeated attempts to aid her in completing recruit training and Marine Combat Training.  After 13 months of strenuous efforts to motivate the Applicant, her command notified her on 7 November 2001 of administrative separation processing for Personality Disorder with a recommended characterization of General (Under Honorable Conditions).  The Applicant acknowledged her rights, in writing, and elected to waive her rights to consult with counsel and to submit a written statement to the Separation Authority.

An Honorable characterization of service is warranted when the quality of a member’s service generally 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) discharge is warranted when the quality of 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 the member’s service record.  A review of her records and her own statements on her DD Form 293 show a consistent pattern of poor performance and conduct.  Though her record does not contain retention warnings or adjudicated misconduct, Block 18 of her DD Form 214 resets the Good Conduct Medal three-year counter on 23 April 2001, which occurs after adjudicated misconduct such as Nonjudicial Punishment or a court-martial.  The Applicant’s statements to the NDRB back up this misconduct.  After a thorough review of the record and Applicant’s statements, the NDRB determined her discharge was warranted, proper, and equitable.  Relief denied. 

4:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends her discharge was based on an incorrect diagnosis from a single doctor during boot camp.  A review of the Applicant’s medical records in service show multiple counselings and visits to mental health professionals during her 13 months of service.  What was initially diagnosed as an Adjustment Disorder following the death of her father 3 months into her 13 months of service evolved into a diagnosis of severe Borderline Personality Disorder as several mental health professionals treated the Applicant over multiple months.  Pursuant to Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual (MARCORSEPMAN) paragraph 6203.3, members may be processed for separation based on a mental health professional’s clinical diagnosis of a Personality Disorder when the 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 safety or well being of themselves or others.  A letter from a psychiatrist from 2nd Marine Division, dated 6 November 2001, confirms the diagnosis of Personality Disorder.  The NDRB found no evidence, nor did the Applicant provide any, to indicate she had overcome her deficiencies due to having a Personality Disorder while still in the service.  Furthermore, records from the Department of Veterans Affairs and records provided by the Applicant indicate a continued diagnosis of Personality Disorder that is reflected in a disability rating of 70% assigned for Major Depressive Disorder with Personality Disorder.  There is no evidence the Applicant was improperly diagnosed.  The NDRB determined her diagnosis was proper and no change is warranted.  Relief denied.

5:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends the Narrative Reason for Separation (Block 28) on her DD Form 214 should be omitted or deleted as it is her right under HIPAA.  Per MARCORSEPMAN paragraph 6203.3, “Personality Disorder” is the correct Narrative Reason for Separation and was properly assigned after her diagnosis by competent medical authority.  “Personality Disorder” on her DD Form 214 is not a violation of HIPAA and is the most accurate reason for her discharge from the Marine Corps.  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