ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20140805
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)	19971113 - 19980125  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  19980126	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Months
Date of Discharge:  19990810	Highest Rank:  
Length of Service:    Year(s)    Month(s)  16  Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  58
MOS:  6092
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):   () /  ()	Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  LoA

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJP:  

- 19990701:	Article  (Failure to obey order or regulation)
	Awarded:     Suspended:   

SCM:  

SPCM:  

CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- 19970924:	For being UA from appointed place of duty.

- 19990127:	For failure to be at your appointed place of duty at the appointed time.

- 19990414:	For having been diagnosed with personality disorder.

- 19990520:	For having been diagnosed with personality disorder. You were reevaluated on 19990401 at which time it was determined that your disorder has not improved to a sufficient degree, and that the further trial of service had not resulted in sufficient improvement. 

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

	 Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, should read:  “RIFLE EXPERT MARKSMANSHIP BADGE, LETTER OF APPRECIATION”
	  “01  06  16”

The NDRB will recommend to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, MMSB-13, 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 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.

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.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.  The Applicant contends his diagnosis of an Antisocial Personality Disorder was erroneous and unjust.
2.  The Applicant contends that his conduct in service did not exhibit the Antisocial Personality Disorder and therefore separation was erroneous and unjust.
3.  The Applicant contends that he did not have Antisocial Personality Disorder and should not have been discharged.
4.  The Applicant contends that his command improperly discharged him because he did not exhibit a pattern of disregard for, and violation of the rights of others with deceit and manipulation being the central features of Antisocial Personality Disorder and there is no documentation of such in the Applicant’s service record. 
5.  The Applicant contends because his command did not afford him proper counseling with time for follow-up evaluation, his command was not in compliance with the MARCORSEPMAN and the Applicant should be granted relief. 
6.  The Applicant contends that he was not afforded reasonable opportunity to correct deficiencies as was recommended by LT  S_  (medical recommendation does not bind the commander)
7.  The Applicant contends that he was just promoted before being notified that he would be ADSEP’d which does not comply with the MARCORSEPMAN 6203.  (Applicant was afforded opportunity to consult with counsel and exercise his rights)
8.  The Applicant contends that his in-service conduct was honorable and merits an upgrade to honorable.
9.  The Applicant contends that his command should have discharged him with an honorable because his discharge was deemed to be in the best interest of the Marine Corps.  The Applicant also contends the lack of documentation in his record and the harsh command climate permitted by MALS 14 metal shop contributed to the unjust circumstances which the Applicant endured.
	
Decision

Date:  20141204		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 Applicant’s record of service included  6105 counseling warnings,   for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):  Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation).  Based on the medical condition of the Applicant,  command administratively processed  for separation.  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, 2, 3, & 4:  (Decisional) ()  .  1.  The Applicant contends his diagnosis of an Antisocial Personality Disorder was erroneous and unjust.  2.  The Applicant contends that his conduct in service did not exhibit the Antisocial Personality Disorder and therefore separation was erroneous and unjust.  3.  The Applicant contends that he did not have Antisocial Personality Disorder and should not have been discharged.  4.  The Applicant contends that his command improperly discharged him because he did not exhibit a pattern of disregard for, and violation of the rights of others with deceit and manipulation being the central features of Antisocial Personality Disorder and there is no documentation of such in the Applicant’s service record.  Based upon available records, nothing indicates that the Applicant’s discharge was in any way inconsistent with the standards of discipline in the United States Marine Corps.  A preponderance of the evidence reviewed supports the conclusion that the Applicant was diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder by a competent military medical authority, and that separation from the Marine Corps was appropriate, and that a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge was warranted.  Relief denied.

Issues 5, 6, & 7:  (Decisional) ()  .  5.  The Applicant contends because his command did not afford him proper counseling with time for follow-up evaluation, his command not in compliance with the MARCORSEPMAN and the Applicant should be granted relief.  6.  The Applicant contends that he was not afforded reasonable opportunity to correct deficiencies as was recommended by LT S_.  (Medical recommendation does not bind the Commander).  7.  The Applicant contends that he was just promoted before being notified that he would be ADSEP’d which does not comply with the MARCORSEPMAN 6203.  (Applicant was afforded opportunity to consult with counsel and exercise his rights).  The NDRB presumed regularity in governmental affairs in that the Separation Authority and Staff Judge Advocate review of the discharge package ensured that the Applicant was afforded all of his administrative rights pursuant to the separation process.  The Applicant did not submit any documentation to rebut any presumption of regularity in governmental affairs by the NDRB.  The separation code on the Applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates that a discharge hearing board was not warranted due to characterization of service.  Relief denied. 

Issue 8:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends that his in-service conduct was honorable and merits an upgrade to honorable.  The record shows the Applicant had misconduct and other significant negative aspects that would have warranted a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the discharge of the Applicant.  By unanimous vote, the NDRB voted to no change to the Applicant’s discharge.  
 
Issue 9:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends that his command should have discharged him with an honorable because his discharge was deemed to be in the best interest of the Marine Corps.  The Applicant also contends the lack of documentation in his record and the harsh command climate permitted by MALS 14 metal shop contributed to the unjust circumstances which the Applicant endured.  Based upon available records, nothing indicates that the Applicant’s discharge was in any way inconsistent with the standards of discipline in the United States Marine Corps.  A preponderance of the evidence reviewed supports the conclusion that the Applicant committed offenses alleged, that separation from the Marine Corps was appropriate, and that a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge was warranted.  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 remain GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) and the narrative reason for separation shall remain PERSONALITY DISORDER.  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