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

ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD04-00300

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20031201.  The Applicant requested the narrative reason received at the time of discharge be changed to “Erroneous Enlistment.”  The Applicant requested a documentary record review.  The Applicant listed civilian counsel as his representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040812.  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 and reason for discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain:  UNCHARACTERIZED/FRAUDULENT ENTRY INTO MILITARY SERVICE, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6204.3.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated by counsel:

Issue 1:  “USMC recruiter Sgt. J_ A. N_ falsified the signature of the ex-wife (M_) of C_ E. H_ (Applicant) on the DD Form 1966/3, Aug. 1997 (Exhibit 1, Section VI) to recruit C_ (Applicant) into the USMC.  M_’s true signature sample can be seen on a copy of a federal income tax return (Exhibit 2); the signature on the 1966/3 purporting to be hers is very different. C_ H_’ (Applicant’s) signature on the same DD Form 1966/3 (Exhibit 3, Section VI), shows that Sgt. N_ witnessed and dated C_ (Applicant’s) signing on 28 Sep. ’99 (Exh. 3, block 31).  Sgt. N_ did not witness nor date M_’s signing the same form (Exh. 1, block 31).  As M_ would not sign the 1966/3 when C_ (Applicant) asked her to, C_ (Applicant) asked Sgt. N_ how he had been able to persuade M_ to sign the form.  Sgt. N_ told C_ (Applicant) he had “ talked her into signing it”.  Sgt. N_ then told C_ (Applicant) to get ready to go to Parris Island, and gave C_ (Applicant) a sealed envelope to be opened only after C_ (Applicant) arrived at boot camp.  C_ (Applicant) thought it suspicious that Sgt. N_ did not want to discuss how he had persuaded M_ to sign.  However, C_ (Applicant) did not see the 1966/3 with M_’s purported signature because it was placed in the sealed envelope.  C_ (Applicant) was so focused on starting boot camp and fulfilling his life-long dream of becoming a Marine, that he set the suspicions about Sgt. N_ aside.

Shortly after arriving at Parris Island, all recruits were ordered to open their sealed envelopes to review the contents.  C_ (Applicant) noticed that his ex-wife’s signature was not authentic, confirming his suspicions that Sgt. N_ had forged his ex-wife’s signature.  C_ (Applicant) told the USMC personnel of this discrepancy and the USMC personnel immediately reacted in a hostile manner, accusing C_ (Applicant) of forging his ex-wife’s signature.

C_ (Applicant) was separated from the rest of the recruits and placed on “hold” status with a handful of other recruits.  He was not allowed to participate in boot camp nor make phone calls for the next three weeks.  When C_ (Applicant) asked to see a lawyer, USMC personnel threatened to put him in prison.  C_ (Applicant) tried to convince them that he had always desired to be a proud member of the USMC, and that he was pointing out this discrepancy on the 1966/3 to begin his career with a clean slate.  He told them he wanted to go into the law enforcement field, so it would be absurd for him to falsify documents and then point them out.  But C_ (Applicant) did not want the recruiter to get away with wrongdoing.  C_ (Applicant) demanded that the USMC personnel investigate Sgt. N_’s fraud, and allow him to continue with boot camp.  Instead, he was threatened with prison and a dishonorable discharge unless he signed a statement recanting his assertions about Sgt. N_.

USMC personnel kept C_ (Applicant) in confinement and coerced him into signing a voluntary statement (Exh.4) to make him appear mentally unbalanced and unfit for service, and into waiving his rights (Exh.5).  C_ (Applicant) was screened for discharge (Exh.6), resulting in a DD Form stating “fraudulent entry” (Exh. 7, block 28).  To entice him to sign, they told C_ (Applicant) that if he signed the forms, he would get a chance to re-enlist two years after the discharge. C_ (Applicant) believed them.

He applied to local police academies during the next two years but kept getting rejected because of the negative information on his DD Form 214.  Two years after the discharge, he tried to re-enlist, but was rejected.  It’s taken him another year to realize that the information on the DD 214 is so damaging that he will never obtain meaningful employment with a law enforcement agency if it is not upgraded.  The only way to give C_ (Applicant) back the opportunities he deserves is to upgrade his discharge by changing the false information contained in the DD Form 214, Special Additional Information. Block 28 should be changed to read, “Erroneous Enlistment” IAW DoD Directive 1332.14, 21 Dec. 93 (Exh. 8). Blocks 26 and 27 should be changed accordingly to reflect the upgrade.

C_ (Applicant) wanted so badly to be a Marine that he paid to have sinus surgery and treatments to qualify for the Armed Forces (Exh. 8).  He did it because he believed he would be given the chance to become a proud Marine.  When he discovered the forged signature, he believed he was doing the proper and ethical thing, as any Marine would do if faced with a similar decision.  Instead, he was threatened with a prison sentence and a dishonorable discharge by unethical members of the USMC.  C_ (Applicant) should have been afforded whistleblower protection, lauded as a courageous individual, and allowed to continue with boot camp. Sgt. N_ should have been investigated.

C_ (Applicant) requests The Discharge Board to upgrade his DD 214, block 26., be changed to read “ERRONEOUS ENLISTMENT”, and that the blocks 25 and 26 be changed accordingly to enable him to live with honor and compete on a level playing field for meaningul employment.”
Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214 (Exhibit 7)
DD Form 1966/3 (Exhibit 1)
1040 Federal Income Tax Form (page 2) (Exhibit 2)
DD Form 1966/3 (Exhibit 3)
Voluntary Statement (Exhibit 4)
Rights/Acknowledgement Statement (Exhibit 5)
Discharge Screening (Exhibit 6)
Excerpt from DoDD 1332.14 (2 pages) (Exhibit 8)
Medical Assessment, dtd September 23, 1999 (Exhibit 9)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR (J)		000316 - 000620	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  000621		Date of Discharge:  000707

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  00  17		Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  28			Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  53

Highest Rank:  PFC

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  NMF *			Conduct:  NMF *

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

* No Marks Found in service record book.

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

UNCHARACTERIZED/FRAUDULENT ENTRY INTO MILITARY SERVICE, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6204.3.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

000623:	Medical evaluation by a clinical Psychologist at the Branch Medical Clinic, MCRD Parris Island.  
Assessment:  Fraud/Major Depression … /Suicidal gestures.  
Remarks:  SNR failed to disclose past psychiatric history.  He has been hospitalized x5 months for suicidal thoughts and depressed mood.  Last year he put a loaded gun to his head during a bout of depression.  SNR is not suitable for service and is a fraud.

000627:  	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to a fraudulent entry into the U.S. Marine Corps.

000627:  	Applicant advised of his 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.

000630:	Commanding officer recommended separation with an uncharacterized discharge by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to a fraudulent entry into the U.S. Marine Corps.  The factual basis for this recommendation was the Applicants undisclosed pre-service psychiatric treatment. 

000630:	GCMCA [Commanding General, Marine Corps recruit Depot/Eastern Recruiting Region] directed the Applicant's separation with an uncharacterized discharge by reason defective enlistment and induction due to a fraudulent entry into the U.S. Marine Corps.

000707:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Fraudulent Entry for pre-service undisclosed psychiatric treatment.]  Assigned re-enlistment code of RE-3P.  

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was separated from the Marine Corps on 20000707 with an uncharacterized discharge by reason defective enlistment and induction due to a fraudulent entry (A).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B).  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 (C and D).

Issue 1.  By regulation, members separated from the military within the first 180 days of enlistment are given “Uncharacterized” discharges unless there were unusual circumstances regarding performance or conduct which would merit a change of characterization or narrative reason.  The Applicant’s service record did not contain any unusual circumstances during his seventeen days in the military to warrant such a change.  Relief denied. 

The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted.  Allegations of recruiter misconduct notwithstanding, the applicant failed to disclose his hospitalization for psychiatric problems, his subsequent suicidal ideations and his pharmaceutical treatment for his psychological problems, thereby constituting the fraud for which he was released from the Marine Corps.  No other Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describes why he was discharged.  To change the Narrative Reason for Separation would be inappropriate.  Relief denied. 

The Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment opportunities as requested in the issue.  Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.  In the Applicant’s case, the Board discovered no impropriety or inequity in the discharge. 

The Applicant should be aware that, with respect to nonservice-related administrative matters, i.e., VA benefits, civilian employment, educational pursuits, etc., an uncharacterized separation shall be considered the equivalent of an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 Aug 95 until 31 Aug 2001, paragraph 6204, DEFECTIVE ENLISTMENT AND INDUCTION.

B.  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.  

C.  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.

D.  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