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

  ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD04-00236

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20031117.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or entry level separation, or uncharacterized and the reason for the discharge be changed to “HARDSHIP.”  The Applicant requests a documentary record review.  The Applicant listed the American Legion as the representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20041001.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB.  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, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “With all due respect, I’m requesting that my discharge be upgraded to honorable or uncharacterized.  My discharge was based solely on one interview with a mental health psychologist.  If you look at my previous interviews before training was complete, you will see that I mentioned that I was home sick.  I’m very dependant on my family.  Before boot camp and while in MEPS, I was having difficulty coping with a terminal illness my grandfather was experiencing.  My grandmother was having financial difficulties & so was my mother.  All of these events took a totel on my mental status.  I told my recruiter the exact same thing & he stated “Checked with my superior & I was told you have to leave on the date given”, which was 04-08-02.  I advised them of the situation in Jan 2002.  My preserves civilian employment is very reputable.  I currently work for a Sheriff’s Department as a detention officer.  Most of my training is on hold because of the reason for discharge.  I’m having more mental health evaluations done to prove I do not have a “personality disorder”.  I will do anything to help resolve this matter, with my last evaluation, I felt scared & there was no way home to help my love ones.  I might have over exaggerated on some incidents.  I was very desperate & hurting.  I have reputable point of contacts if needed to verify my personality.  One military contact is Captain M_ P_ (Retired Chaplain) as of 2003.  Phone # (deleted) Please review all of my awards & conduct for consideration.  Thank you for your time & consideration.”

Additional issues submitted by Applicant’s representative (American Legion):

2.  “Equity Issue:  Based on our review of evidentiary record and on behalf of this former member, we opine that an administrative error occurred in the characterization assignment of this Applicant’s discharge because he satisfies requirements provided under MARCORSEPMAN, Par. 1004 for a fully honorable discharge.  On this basis, we petition the Board’s relief.

In accordance with 32 C.F.R., section 724.166 and SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 1.16, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the above issue and following statement in supplement to this Applicant’s petition. 

The Board’s attention is invited to Block 23 of DD Form 214 which should read Discharged vice Entry Level Separation.  

Review of his service record reveals that this former member maintained satisfactory overall PRO/CON markings of 4.2/4.2 and earned the NDSM.  He had no averse counseling entries or NJPs.  On 021102, he was referred for a psychiatric evaluation that provided diagnoses, under Axis I, for adjustment disorder with depressed mood, occupational problem, attention deficit disorder by history and, under Axis II, for personality disorder with schizoid, schizotypal and borderline traits.  The evaluation found him unsuitable for further military service and recommended administrative separation due to the conditions.  Following due process notifications, he was discharged General (Under Honorable Conditions) due to a personality disorder as authorized by MARCORSEPMAN, Par. 6203.3.

Essentially, as noted on DD Form 293, this Applicant is requesting that his discharge be upgraded and his narrative reason be changed to Hardship because his in service mental health evaluation misdiagnosed the problems he was experiencing as a personality disorder when in fact it was due to the severe difficulties that his family was undergoing back home.  He has submitted one additional document, a graduation certificate from Central Piedmont Community College in Law Enforcement Training, for consideration.

Additional comments in support of issue, characterization guidance under MARCORSEPMAN, Par. 1004 states, in part, that a GD “is warranted when significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive aspects of the member’s military record, as reflected by conduct and proficiency marks below 4.0 and 3.0, respectively”.  We note that this Applicant had no adverse entries in his SRB for misconduct and that his PRO/CON marks were 4.2/4.2.  While not improper, the assigned characterization is inequitable under provisions of Par. 1004 and is further evidenced by the Staff Judge Advocate’s 030219 conclusions and recommendation for an HD.

The American Legion’s express purpose in providing this statement and any other submittals or evidence filed is to assist this Applicant in the clarification and resolution of the impropriety or inequity raised.  To that end, we rest assured that the NDRB’s final decision will reflect sound equitable principles consistent in law, regulation, policy and discretion as promulgated by title 10 U.S.C., section 1553, and set forth in 32 C.F.R., part 724 and SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1). 

This case is now respectfully submitted for deliberation and disposition.”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214
Central Piedmont Community College certificate, dated June 4, 2004
Eighty-one pages from Applicant’s medical record
PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		020116 - 020407	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  020408		Date of Discharge:  030227

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  10  20
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  21			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  42

Highest Rank:  PFC			MOS:  3100

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.2 (1)			Conduct:  4.2 (1)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, RSB

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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:

020722:	Fleet Mental Health Unit: Diagnosis: Axis I: Adjustment disorder with depressed mood.

020808:	Fleet Mental Health Unit: Diagnosis: Axis I: Adjustment disorder with depressed mood; occupational problem.

020815:	Fleet Mental Health Unit: Diagnosis: Axis I: Adjustment disorder with depressed mood, occupational problem.

020829:	Fleet Mental Health Unit: Diagnosis: Axis I: Adjustment disorder with depressed mood, occupational problem.

020906:	Fleet Mental Health Unit: Diagnosis: Axis I: disorder with depressed mood, occupational problem.

020924:	Mental Health Department: Diagnosis: Axis I: Adjustment disorder. Axis 2: Attention Deficit Disorder (EPTE).

021120:	Medical evaluation by a military psychiatrist 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: Adjustment disorder with depressed mood
		 Occupational Problem
		 Attention deficit disorder by history
	AXIS II: Personality disorder with schizoid, schizotypal and borderline traits

021120:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Personality disorder.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided.

030121:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under honorable conditions (general) for the convenience of the government due to a personality disorder, based upon a diagnosed personality disorder as evidenced by psychiatric evaluation.

030121:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation and to submit a statement.

030121:	Applicant’s statement.

030123:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general) for the convenience of the government due to a personality disorder, based upon a diagnosed personality disorder as evidenced by psychological evaluation.  The factual basis for this recommendation was by Naval psychiatrist NMCP 6300/22.  Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim): Private First Class O_ (Applicant) joined the Marine Corps on 8 April 2002, and this unit on 30 October 2002.  Upon arriving to this command, PFC O_ (Applicant) notified the chain of command that he did not belong here, as he believed he should have been separated while at MCT, Camp Pendleton, CA.  At that time, I notified him that it was not our decision to make on whether he were to remain on active duty or be separated from the service, but that I would follow up with his previous command to learn what I could about the situation.  From there, I made a call to Capt C_ H_ (telephone number deleted), XO for MCT Medical Hold Platoon, Camp Pendleton, CA to inquire about PFC O_’s (Applicant's ) claims.  Per enclosure (7), Capt H_ stated that there had been a Congressional Inquiry Investigation performed and PFC O_ (Applicant) was found ‘fit for duty’ and processed for follow-on orders.  However, per enclosure (8), the recommendation made on 26 Sept 02 by CDR D_ L_ R_, Staff Psychologist for Naval Hospital Camp Pendleton (telephone number deleted) was to separate this Marine for not only Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), but his inability to adapt to the military.
Of course, ADD was determined not to be cause for separation and PFC O_ (Applicant) was processed to Fort Eustis for follow-on training.  Thus, upon his arrival here, he requested another mental health evaluation.  This time, per enclosure (9), he was seen by CDR S_ A_ (telephone number deleted) of the Department of Psychiatry, Naval Medical Center, Portsmouth, VA.  This time, PFC O_ (Applicant) was recommended for administrative separation by reason of convenience to the government due to a mental health condition (adjustment disorder) as described in enclosure (9).
Seemingly, because the psychiatrist could not promise a discharge to SNM, PFC O_ (Applicant) decided to contact the Office of the Inspector General where he spoke with Mr. M_ E_ L_ (GS-12) (telephone number deleted).  SNM related to Mr. L_ that he was not being dealt with in a timely manner and felt that he should not be here at Fort Eustis.  At that time, I compiled all information to date and forwarded it to Inspector L_, who forwarded this documentation to Capt R_ D_ E_, USN, Executive Assistant, Health Services, Headquarters, United States Marine Corps (Telephone number deleted) for review, evaluation and subsequent recommendation.  Per enclosure (10), Capt E_ stated that the Physical Qualification and Review Branch of the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery (BUMED) should make further review and recommendation.
At this time, SNM is an assistant to the Brigade Chaplain with daily tasks and functions, but is not enrolled in his designated MOS school training, as he shows no desire to do so.  SNM remains respectful, but personally lethargic and professionally apathetic on a daily basis.
He has made comments to me specifically related to suicide, hearing voices, practicing voodoo, and crying uncontrollably, also included in enclosure (8), (9), and (11).  As a mental health layman, I cannot say to what extent this information is truthful or concocted, but I can say emphatically that SNM does not want to be a U.S.  Marine.  I personally would not want to have to depend on him at a critical moment or time of crisis.  As a result, I respectfully request that this Marine be separated as soon as possible.
Private First Class O_ (Applicant) was delivered his Notification, Acknowledgment of Rights Form and NDBR Form on 21 January 2003, he responded within the two working day time limit.  Private First Class O_ (Applicant) has no potential for future military service; he does not possess a security clearance or have access to classified material.
3.  A complete copy of the discharge package will be given to Private First Class O_ (Applicant).

030219:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

030224:	Counseled: [Your request for separation from the USMC due to personality disorder has been approved].

030224:	GCMCA [Commanding General, Training Command, Quantico, VA] directed the Applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general) for convenience of the government due to a personality disorder.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20030227 with a 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).

Issues 1 and 2.  The Board found that a properly credentialed medical provider diagnosed the Applicant to possess a personality disorder during his active duty service.  No other narrative reason more clearly describes the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s processing for administrative separation.  Relief to the narrative reason for separation is therefore denied.

When a Marine’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.  A characterization of service of under honorable conditions (general) is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member's military record.  The Applicant’s service was marred by his persistent efforts to void his enlistment contract and not complete his MOS training.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service.  An upgrade to honorable is inappropriate.  Relief denied.

The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.  Normally, to permit relief, an inequity or impropriety must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such inequity or impropriety 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, to enhance employment opportunities, or for 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, employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle, are examples of verifiable documentation that may be provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct.  The Applicant’s evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate his actions while on active duty sufficient to warrant an upgrade to his discharge.  Relief not warranted.

The Applicant 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.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.  

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Paragraph 6203, CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 02 Sep 01 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 “afls14.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