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

ex-LCpl, USMC
Docket No. MD04-00602

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20040225.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing.  In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.  The Applicant did not designate a 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 in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB.  The NDRB did find, however, that the Applicant’s discharge was inequitably characterized.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall change to: HONORABLE.  The Narrative Reason shall remain:  CONDITION NOT A DISABILITY, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6203.2.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “I believe my discharge to be improper due to the following reasons:  During my three years and four months of service, I never received an NJP or Court Martial.  I earned my good conduct medal and my last pro/con marks were 4.6/4.7.  Both my OIC and SNCOIC stated that I am a hard worker and strive for perfection.  The Medical Officers that it would be best for my health and to the Marine Corps’ benefit to discharge me.  I was informed by my 1st Sgt that with a General Discharge I would still be able to use the G.I. Bill.  I signed the discharge papers in the confidence that I would not lose my benefits.  Had I know I would not be able to use the G.I. Bill, I would have remained on active duty for my remaining seven months of enlistment and remained on light duty.”

Documentation

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

Proficiency and conduct markings sheet, undated
Recommendation for administrative separation dtd 10 Apr 02

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		980727 - 990621	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  990622		Date of Discharge:  021010

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:  03  03  19
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  57

Highest Rank:  LCpl			MOS: 1316

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.4 		Conduct:  4.3 [extracted from SJA letter of 020926]

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  GCM, NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/ CONDITION NOT A DISABILITY, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6203.2.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

020410:	Medical Officer recommended separation for physical condition not a disability due to a physical condition apparently beyond the individuals control.  SNM has been treated for the following conditions: Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, Patellar Femoral Syndrome, Limb Length Discrepancy, Lumbar Segmental Dysfunction, Gastroespheogeal Reflex Disorder, Bilateral Subluxing Shoulders, 2/6 Systolic Heart Murmur, Right Sternoclavicular Joint Subtcutaneous Nodule.  SNM has had surgery along with repeated light duty periods, limited duty boards and rehabilitative modalities.  There has been little or no improvement of his condition during treatment/rehabilitative period.  Member is still unable to perform full duties as a Marine.

020918:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government for a condition not a disability.

020918:	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.

020923:	Commanding officer recommended discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government for a condition not a disability.  The factual basis for this recommendation was based upon his medically documented conditions of Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, Patellar Femoral Syndrome, Limb Length Discrepancy, Lumbar Segmental Dysfunction, Gastroespheogeal Reflex Disorder, Bilateral Subluxing Shoulders, 2/6 Systolic Heart Murmur, Right Sternoclavicular Joint Subtcutaneous Nodule.

020926:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

020930:	GCMCA [CG 2FSSG] directed the Applicant's discharge 
with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of condition not a disability.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20021010 with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government due to condition not a disability (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 but not equitable (C and D).

Issue 1.  The Board found that in the Applicant’s case, the characterization of service should have been the “type warranted by service record.”  A review of Applicant’s records indicated an honorable discharge was warranted.  Applicant’s performance and behavior marks were above the standard required for an honorable discharge and there was no adverse information that would have warranted any other characterization of his service.  Therefore, relief to the character of service is granted.  

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F, effective 
01 September 2001 and Present), paragraph 6203, CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT

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