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

 ex-Cpl, USMC
Docket No. MD04-00897

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20040507.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests a documentary record review.  The Applicant listed the American Legion as her representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20041022.  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 four to one 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.  “I would like to use my MGIB to pay for school and cannot without a discharge upgrade”
2.  “I was a member of the United States Marine Corps from April of 1994 through May of 1997.”
3.  “During the first twelve (12) months of my enlistment I contributed $100.00 per month for twelve (12) months to the MGIB.”
4.  “During my enlistment I was “Marine of the Month” and “Marine of the Quarter” and received multiple awards (See attached).”
5.  “I served for at least thirty (30) consecutive months in the Armed Services.”
6.  “I was discharged from the United States Marine Corps with a General Under Honorable Conditions Discharge.”
7.  “I have been attending college for the past two years and have completed over fifty (50) combined credits. (See attached transcripts from Casselberry City College and University of Phoenix).”
8.  “I would like to continue to go to college in order to complete my degree, but have not been able to get assistance (Gl Bill) due to the fact that I did not receive a straight “Honorable” discharge.”
9.  “I have been a productive member of society, including raising two children, working full time, and attending college n the evenings.”

Additional issues submitted by Applicant’s counsel/representative (AMERICAN LEGION):

10.  “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 she 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. 

Review of his service record reveals that this former member maintained satisfactory overall PRO/CON markings of 4.6/4.4 and earned the NDSM, GCM, SSDR, COC, and RSB.  She had no averse counseling entries or NJPs.  On 960130, he was referred for a psychiatric evaluation that provided diagnoses, under Axis I, for adult survivor of sexual abuse and, under Axis II, for borderline personality disorder. The evaluation found her unsuitable for further military service and on 960222 she was recommended for administrative separation due to the conditions.  On 970409, she was evaluated again and given diagnoses under Axis I, of anxiety disorder and, under Axis IIl, of personality disorder NOS.  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 and attachment, this Applicant is requesting that her discharge be upgraded because her overall SRB supports an HD, because she wants her MGIB and because of her post-service conduct.  She has submitted 2 additional documents reflecting her educational pursuits 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 her SRB for misconduct and that her PRO/CON marks were 4.6/4.4.  While not improper, the assigned characterization is inequitable under provisions of Par. 1004 and is further evidenced by her immediate supervisors, GySgt S.D.B. and CW02 R.V.H., statements that found her to be an outstanding Marine warranting an HD as well as her CO’s (Marine Wing Support Squadron 272) recommendation and his CO’s (Marine Wing Support Group 27) recommendation that she receive 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
Two Certificates of Commendation
High School Diploma
Unofficial transcript, University of Phoenix
Transcript, ISTM d/b/a City College

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		940329 - 940417	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  940418		Date of Discharge:  970522

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  01  05
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  17			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  82

Highest Rank:  Cpl			MOS:  3521

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.6 (7)			Conduct:  4.4 (7)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, SSDR, CC (2), GCM

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:

960222:	Medical evaluation by a military psychiatrist concluded that the Applicant’s personality disorder was so severe that her ability to function effectively in the military environment was significantly impaired.  She posed a continuing risk of harming herself or others and for negatively impacting unit morale and effectiveness.  Recommended for administrative separation.

	AXIS I:  Adult survivor of sexual abuse
	
	AXIS II:  Borderline Personality Disorder 

970409:	Medical evaluation by a military psychologist concluded that the Applicant’s personality disorder was so severe that her ability to function effectively in the military environment was significantly impaired.  She posed a continuing risk of harming herself and for negatively impacting unit morale and effectiveness.
	Recommended for administrative separation.

	AXIS I:  Anxiety Disorder
	
	AXIS II:  Personality Disorder NOS (w/borderline and histrionic traits)

970507:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

970507:	Commanding Officer recommended honorable discharge for the convenience of the government due to a personality disorder, based upon a diagnosed personality disorder.  Retention of the Applicant is inconsistent with discipline and military effectiveness within this organization.

970509:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.  

970509:	GCMCA [Commander, 2d MAW] directed the Applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general) for convenience of the government due to a personality disorder.

Partial Discharge Package

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19970522 with a general (under honorable conditions) for convenience of the government due to a personality disorder (A and B).  After a thorough review of the available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).  The presumption of regularity of governmental affairs was applied by the Board in this case in the absence of a complete discharge package (E).

Issues 1, 3 and 8.  The Veterans Administration 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.

Issues 2, 4-7, 10.  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.  In the Applicant’s case the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore considered the Applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable.  An upgrade to honorable is inappropriate.  Relief denied.

Issue 9.  The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects her service to her country.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  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, 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 evidence of a substance free lifestyle, are examples of verifiable documents that should have been provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct.  The Applicant’s evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate her conduct while on active duty sufficient to warrant an upgrade to her discharge.  

The Applicant is reminded that she remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of her 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 P1900.16E), effective 18 Aug 95 until 31 August 2001.

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 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.

E.  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.  

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