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

 ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD01-00394

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010208, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 010822.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PERSONALITY DISORDER, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6203.3

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  At the time of my discharge, I was 20 years old, newly married and was sent to Japan.  As a result of our separation, my wife and I developed marital problems.
In an effort to be sent home to try to resolve our problems, I reported that I was suicidal.  At my psychiatric examination I was able to fool the examiner so I could be separated from service. I now regret having deceived the Marine Corps and wish to have my discharge upgraded so I can re-enlist in the Marines.

Documentation

In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:

Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		961231 - 970728	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  970729		Date of Discharge:  980424

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  08  27
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  31

Highest Rank:  PFC

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.3 (1)			Conduct:  4.3 (1)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  1

Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PERSONALITY DISORDER, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6203.3.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

970125:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:
Specification: Absent from appointed place of duty from 0500, 20Jan98 to 2200, 21Jan98 (1 day).
Awarded forfeiture of $505.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duties for 7 days.  Forfeiture suspended for 1 month.  Not appealed.

980320:	Medical evaluation by a military psychologist concluded that the applicant’s personality disorder was so severe that his ability to function effectively in the military environment was significantly impaired.

	AXIS I: Occupational Problem
		  Relational Problem NOS
		  Alcohol Abuse
		  Cannabis Abuse
	
	AXIS II: Borderline Personality Disorder, EPTE

980408:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.  

980414:	GCMCA [Commanding General, 3d Force Service Support Group] directed the applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general) for convenience of the government due to a personality disorder.

Partial discharge package missing from service/medical records.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 980424 general (under honorable conditions) for convenience of the government due to a personality disorder (A and B).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C).  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (D and E).

The applicant states he fooled the examiner at a psychiatric examination so he could be separated from the service.  The Board does not consider the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s stated condition and implied incorrect diagnosis to be of sufficient nature to warrant an upgrade to his characterization of service.  The applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or injustice occurred during the applicant’s enlistment.  Additionally, there is no law, or regulation, which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time, or good conduct in civilian life, subsequent to leaving the service.  However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review.  Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than Honorable discharge.  Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, an employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and proof of his not using drugs, are examples of verifiable documents that should have been provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct.  The applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to warrant an upgrade to his discharge.  He is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge.  The applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.  Legal representation at a personal appearance hearing is highly recommended but not required.  Relief denied.

Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reentry into the naval service or any other branch of the Armed Forces.  The NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy or Marine Corps.  Reenlistment policy of the naval service is promulgated by the Commander, Navy Personnel, Pers 814, 5720 Integrity Drive, Millington, TN 38055, and the Commandant, United States Marine Corps, Code MMPE-5, Washington, DC  20380-3001.  Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment.  A request for waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.  

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Paragraph 6203, CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 Aug 95 until Present.

B.  Table 6-1, Guide for Characterization of Service, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 Aug 95 until Present.

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.  

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

E.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.

PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT

If you believe that 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 Directive 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Directive.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive 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 Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “afls10.jag.af.mil”.  

The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:

		Naval Council of Personnel Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023