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

 ex-LCPL, USMC
Docket No. MD04-01355

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20040824.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests a personal appearance discharge review before a traveling panel closest to Vista, CA.   In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel; all hearings are held in the Washington National Capital Region or Washington DC area. The NDRB also advised that the Board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.  The Applicant listed the Disabled American Veterans as her representative on the DD Form 293

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20050428.  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:

“  I was diagnosed with a Borderline Personality disorder with Dysthymic Disorder.  I had problems while on active duty service trying to conform and perform all the required duties.  I tried so hard.  It never got any better and I felt more and more despair.  I had a child and was a single parent struggling to make it with no help.  I didn’t have enough family or friends that could help me.  I felt leaving active duty because of the complications was the only way for me to make it with my daughter.  Since I got out I gave been going to counseling.  I got married.  I am on medications to help with my mood.  I have 2 daughters now.  I worked with the JATC until I had problems with carpal tunnel.  I am trying to go to school for something that I can do with my limitations.  I need your help so I can use my benefits that I sacrificed to pay for when I was active duty.  Please help me improve my life further.”

Additional issues submitted by Applicant’s representative DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS:

“Dear Chairperson:

After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the contention of the appellant in his request for a discharge upgrade of her current General, Under Honorable Conditions Discharge to that of Honorable.

The FSM served on active service from May 4, 1998 to March 1, 2002 at which time she was discharged due to a Personality Disorder.  

The FSM contends the current discharge is improper because she could never overcome the impairment of her personality disorder.  She received a Good Conduct Medal on the period commencing March 2, 2000.  She made a couple of mistakes for which she was counseled, but that were not used in her discharge.  

This creates a need for a review of the application of the standard, for the Board to determine that the applicant’s discharge was improper.  The Board will determine which reason for discharge should have been assigned based upon the facts and circumstances before the Board, including the service regulations governing the reasons for discharge at that time, to determine whether relief is warranted.  See, SECNAVIST 5420.174 D, Sect.  407, part 3.

As the representative, we ask that consideration be given to equitable relief, as this is a matter that involves a determination whether a discharge should be changed under the equity standards, to include any issue upon which the applicant submits to the Board’s discretionary authority, under SECNAVIST 5420.174D.

We ask for the Board’s careful and sympathetic consideration of all the evidence of record used in rendering a fair and impartial decision.   These issues do not supersede any issues previously submitted by the applicant.

Respectfully,
[Signed]
K_ L. G_
National Service Officer”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214
Letter from A_ M. T_, dated July 26, 2004
Letter from A_ M. T_, dated July 26, 2004
1 Page from Applicant’s Medical Record, dated 30 July 01

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		970807 - 980503	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  980504		Date of Discharge:  020301

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  09  25
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  5

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  71

Highest Rank:  LCPL			MOS:  6324, 0151

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  NMA *			Conduct:  NMA *

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  RMB

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

* No Marks Available in Record

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:

980903:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance in the areas of responsibility, dependability, initiative, and judgment.   [Specifically, the Applicant was notified by her reporting orders to MCT, SOI, Camp Lejeune, NC, that POV’s were not authorized.  The Applicant was in direct violation of these orders when she drove he POV to MCT.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

000302:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134 (1 spec):
Specification 1:  On or about 13 Sep 99, did commit adultery with a married man, not her husband.
Awarded reduction to PFC, forfeiture of $563.00 per month for 2 months (totatl forf $1126.00), and extra duties for 45 days.  Forfeiture of $563.00 pay per month for 2 months and 45 days extra duties suspended for 6 months, at which time, unless sooner vacated, all suspended punishment will be remitted without further action. (total forf suspended $1126.00).  Appeal submitted 000302.  Appeal denied 000308.

010713: 	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Specifically: Misconduct: On 12 July 2001, the Applicant failed to muster at the HMT-303 Avionics work center, her appointed place of duty.]   Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

010730:	Medical evaluation by a U.S. Navy psychiatrist:  Applicant diagnosed with dysthymic disorder and adjustment disorder with DM Borderline personality disorder.   Recommend administrative separation for personality disorder.  Patient [Applicant] has a severe disorder of character and personality that interferes with military service.  Although currently not suicidal, she is at risk of harm to self if maintained on prolonged active duty.

010910:	Administrative Remark:  Applicant notified that she is eligible but not recommended for promotion to Cpl for the Oct/Nov promotion period because of not performing in MOS.  Applicant chose not to make a rebuttal statement. 

011001:	Administrative Remark:  Applicant notified that she is eligible but not recommended for promotion to Cpl for the Oct/Nov/Dec promotion period because of lack of ability/skills-personal issues.  

0200114:	Administrative Remark:  Applicant notified that she is eligible but not recommended for promotion to Cpl for the Feb/Mar/Apr promotion period because of  “being unable to perform at a satisfactory level as a LCpl.”   Applicant chose not to make a rebuttal.  

020301:	DD Form 214: Applicant discharged

Applicant’s discharge package missing from service record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20020301 with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization 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).    

Issue 1.   The Applicant contends that her problems in the Marine Corps can be attributed to her family problems.  While she may feel that her family situation was the underlying cause of her misconduct, the record clearly reflects her willful misconduct, and did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for her conduct or that she should not be held accountable for her actions.  Relief denied.

The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Naval Discharge Review Board.  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.  Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.

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.  The Applicant does not deny that she was suffering from a personality disorder at the time of her discharge from the U.S. Marine Corps.   A U.S. Navy psychiatrist diagnosed her with dysthymic disorder and an adjustment disorder with DM Borderline personality disorder.  The psychiatrist specifically recommended administrative separation for personality disorder; the Applicant had a severe disorder of character and personality that interfered with military service and she was considered to be at risk of “harm to self” if she was maintained on prolonged active duty.   The Applicant's DD Form 214, Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, indicates he was separated for a Personality Disorder.  No other Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describe why the Applicant was discharged.  To change the Narrative Reason Separation would be inappropriate.

When the service of a member of the U.S. Marine Corps has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.  A general discharge 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 2 retention warnings and a nonjudicial punishment proceedings for a violation of Article 134 (adultery) of the UCMJ. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of her service, reflects her willful failure to meet the requirements of her contract with the U.S. Marine Corps and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of her characterization of service.  Relief is not warranted.

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.  The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to her discharge at that time.  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 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity.

E.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, 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 “http://Boards.law.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:

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