ex- PFC, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20210819
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   PERSONALITY DISORDER
Authority for Discharge:   MARCORSEPMAN 6203.3 [PERSONALITY DISORDER] 

Applicant’s Request:  Characterization change to:  
Narrative Reason change to:  REQUESTED, BUT NOT SPECIFIED
Reentry Code change to:  REQUESTED, BUT NOT SPECIFIED

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:   	             	Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20080219	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20090327	Highest Rank/Rate:  PFC
Length of Service:  01  Year(s)  01  Month(s)  15  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  86
Deployment/Operation:  

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency:  4.2 (NFIR)   Behavior/Conduct:  4.2 (NFIR)  
Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):  GWOTSM NDSM

Periods of UA:  NONE
Periods of CONF:  NONE
Other Time Lost per DD214:  NONE

SCM:    SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:    CC:    NJP:  NONE

Retention Warning Counseling:  2

- 20081208:	For diagnosis of personality disorder.

- 20090227:	For recommendation for separation due to diagnosis of personality disorder.

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):  20170519
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:  MD16-01597
NDRB Documentary Review Findings:  Proper as issued and no change warranted.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

	DD 214:		Service/Medical Record:		Other Records:	
	Employment:		Finances:		Education/Training:	
	Health/Medical Records:		Rehabilitation/Treatment:		Criminal Records:	
	Personal Documentation:		Community Service:		References:	
	Department of VA letter:		Other Documentation:	

Additional Statements

	From Applicant:		From/To Representation:		From/To Congress member:	
 
Types of Witnesses Who Testified

	Expert:  			Character:    

	Witness E-1:			Witness C-1:	
	Witness E-2:			Witness C-2:

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Paragraph 6203.3 CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 06 Jun 2007 until 25 Nov 2013.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Manual 5420.1 of 29 September 2020 (Standards for the execution of the Naval Discharge Review Board).

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant contends his post-service accomplishments warrant an upgrade to Honorable.
2.	The Applicant contends the characterization of his service and narrative reason for his separation are inequitable.

Discussion

Date:  20230612	 (VTC)	Location:  WASHINGTON D.C.	Representation:  

The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB), under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.  In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  The Board completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process to ensure the pertinent standards of equity and propriety were met.

As a result of the Applicant’s claim of a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, or Military Sexual Trauma, and in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 1553, the NDRB included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist.  Additionally, and pursuant to § 1553, the NDRB reviewed the case with liberal consideration that a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, or Military Sexual Trauma potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in the discharge of a lesser characterization.  A review of the record revealed that the Applicant did not deploy in support of a contingency operation, and so this case did not warrant an expedited review in accordance with § 1553.

The Applicant's record of service included:

:  The Applicant contends his post-service accomplishments warrant an upgrade to Honorable and the 
characterization of his service and narrative reason for his separation are inequitable.

The NDRB reviews the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge individually, on a case-by-case basis.  If such a review reveals an impropriety or inequity, relief is in order.  Regulations permit relief on equitable grounds if the Applicant’s discharge is inconsistent with standards of discipline of the Naval Service.

The Board reviewed the Applicant’s case in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 1553, and pursuant to the Kurta Memo and other applicable regulations and guidance, including the Wilkie Memo.  Under the Kurta Memo, “[m]ental health conditions, including PTSD; sexual assault; and sexual harassment inherently affect one’s behaviors and choices causing veterans to think and behave differently than might otherwise be expected.”  Although, “[l]iberal consideration does not mandate an upgrade, [r]elief may be appropriate … for minor misconduct commonly associated with mental health conditions … and some significant misconduct sufficiently justified or outweighed by the facts and circumstances.”  Additionally, “substance seeking behavior and efforts to self-medicate symptoms of a mental health condition may warrant consideration.”  However, “[p]remeditated misconduct is not generally excused by mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; or by a sexual assault or sexual harassment experience.”  Therefore, “Review Boards will exercise caution in assessing the causal relationship between asserted conditions or experiences and premeditated misconduct.” See USD (P&R) Memo, “Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Requests by Veterans for Modification of their Discharge Due to Mental Health Conditions, Sexual Assault, or Sexual Harassment” 25 August 2017 (“Kurta Memo”).

The review of discharges pursuant to the Kurta Memo and its other applicable regulations/guidance generally involves four questions: a) Did the veteran have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge; b) Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service; c) Does that condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge; and d) Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge?  In this case, the Board found that: a) the Applicant did have a condition/experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge; b) the condition existed during military service; c) the condition/experience mitigated the underlying basis/misconduct for the discharge; and d) the condition/experience outweighed the Applicant’s assigned Discharge Characterization.

MEDICAL BOARD MEMBER OPINION
1.	Does the available record reasonably support a DSM mental/ behavioral health condition, PTSD, TBI, or Sexual Trauma/Abuse/IPV existed at the time of the Applicant’s military service?	Yes; minimally, in the form of an undiagnosed Adjustment Disorder of Adolescence.	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Yes	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	Not Applicable; No misconduct	
3.	Were all required mental health and/or medical evaluations conducted in accordance with regulations, prior to the administrative separation of the applicant?	Uncertain; apparently the performing healthcare professional was not made aware of the mental health related issues; nor did the Applicant acknowledge same at that time.	
4.	Medical Board Member comments:	
PRIOR TO ENLISTMENT:

“For a time while In high school, [Applicant] was medicated with Lexapro (2-3 months). He dropped out of Carlmont High School, but later completed enough units at Redwood High School to graduate.  Redwood is a continuation school which offers substantially less motivated students the opportunity to complete high school. [See 31 Mar 2016 psychologist letter below]”

MEPS:  AFQT: 86

Feb 2008—ENLISTMENT: @ Age 17 PC

Dec 2008—TAMC psychiatric hospitalization:

09 Dec 2008—Separation Physical occurrence:  “…the Applicant did not disclose he had been diagnosed with a personality disorder.  Moreover, the medical officer that administered the separation physical also did not note a personality disorder diagnosis.”

Mar 2009 —DISCHARGE:
ENLISTMENT Details:

“…He was around older Marines and, as a teenager, was susceptible to peer pressure and began to drink heavily with them to cope with the change in mood he was struggling with. Id.  He also experienced trouble sleeping and depression...on December 9, 2008, [Applicant] attended his separation physical and reported that he had been counseled for depression, had attended anger management classes, and had attempted suicide prior to joining the Marine Corps…”

Per the application’s statement, “Since his discharge, [Applicant]  has worked hard to build his life.  He earned Associates Degrees in Fire sciences and Communication from the college of San Mateo…a Bachelor of science Degree in Communication from Arizona State University…currently works as an account Executive at Nextiva, a telephone services company, and was recently promoted [to?]…After his discharge, [Applicant] suffered severe burns in a car accident, and therefore is interested in working with burn victim support groups and veteran support groups and has applied to do so….Coworkers and friends describe [Applicant] as a ‘leader,’ a ‘hard worker,’ ‘trustworthy,’ a ‘positive influence,’ and ‘a source of encouragement and light for anyone who has come across him.’”

POST SEPARATION:

31 Mar 2016—“______…PSYCHOLOGIST…Hillsborough, CA… [Letter to County of San Mateo Human Services agency] included:

“The above-named began psychotherapy with this clinician on February 3, 2016. He has been seen for 10 appointments and will continue psychotherapy for an indeterminate time.  [Applicant] was in the Marine Corps for 13 months. He entered the service at 17 years of age and received a general discharge 13 months later, In March 2009, which stated that he had a personality disorder.

[Applicant] feels that the Marine Corps made many promises
to him, but failed to fulfill those promises. His anger began at this time and he started acting out. He also began pulling his hair out at that time. His intense anger manifested itself in aggressive behavior, foolishly hitting a parking meter and drinking beer excessively.
For a time while in high school, [Applicant] was medicated with Lexapro (2-3 months). He droeped [sic] out of Carlmont High School, but later completed enough umts at Redwood High School to graduate.  Redwood Is a continuation school which offers substantially less motivated students the opportunity to complete high school.”

30 Oct 2018—Psychological Testing report by “Dr.___ …., PLLC
[Professional Limited Liability Company]: “I chose the assessments for PTSD due to [Applicant] reporting some [apparently post discharge?] trauma in his past with a car accident and past service for the Marine Corp. [Applicant] did not meet criteria for PTSD. I then provided him with an objective and a projective measure of personality to rule out the potential of a personality disorder. His objective testing demonstrated that he may have been slightly defensive, denying minor faults and shortcomings that most people acknowledge readily. Perhaps owning to the belief that it is in his best interest to do so. Despite being slightly defensive, he was able to understand and respond to the items on the test in a consistent manner and his testing was valid. His testing did not suggest he was "faking good" or that he was over endorsing any particular items. His testing also did not show any signs of a personality disorder. [Applicant] projective testing demonstrated themes of perseverance. Hard work, determination, and positive outcomes. There was nothing in his projective testing to suggest [Applicant] may have a personality disorder. It is my understanding that [Applicant] may have been diagnosed with this personality disorder when he was quite young. Clinically, it is not in the patient’s best interest to be diagnosed with a personality disorder while a teenager, as the personality is still forming. It is likely that [Applicant] has since matured and developed a healthy personality.”

UNDATED—“_______PSYCHOLOGIST [No degree specified] Hillsborough, CA  “currently attending junior college, carrying a full load of 15 units and doing quite well…feel certain that the Marine Corps knew of the educational status of Redwood High School and exhibited questionable judgement…with regard to accepting credits for graduation…diagnosis given by the military was punitive and…discharge should have been honorable…He entered the service at age 17, being still very much an adolescent…Normal personality…”

COMMENT:

Regardless of the issue of administrative appropriateness in this case, it is noted as a general principle, the mere presence of a diagnosis of Personality Disorder at one point in life is not a bar to later remission related to maturity or intervening life altering positive or negative experiences.  Whatever the case, it is, fortunately, clear the Applicant apparently did mature over time, as noted in the submitted evidence.  Indeed, despite the Applicant’s testimony reflecting significant, repeated failure to recall much of the documented pre-enlistment and enlistment  (see CO’s statement) course evidence of adjustment difficulties, the Applicant’s early enlistment at age 17 appears to have been, at the very least, premature.

The Application, also, notes potentially life changing traumatic (e.g., “suffered severe burns in a car accident,”), positive motivating experiences (including academic and professional success, and, perhaps most pivotally (as acknowledged by the Applicant), participation in the California Landmark Forum Program (nee “erhard seminar training”)).  In summary, despite the evidence of prior to and during enlistment adjustment difficulties, the Applicant’s record of respectably high proficiency and conduct marks along with the absence of serious Misconduct (such that the Kurta-Wilkie guidance does not completely apply), along with the evolution of applicable regulatory issues suggests consideration of fairness and equity would appear indicated in the form of deleting the diagnosis of Personality Disorder (instead, referring to indications of an Adjustment Disorder of Adolescence).	

When a service member’s command suspects a physical condition interferes with their effective performance of duty, they should be referred to the appropriate medical authority.  If examination by a medical officer confirms the service member is suffering from a physical condition apparently beyond the individual’s control and indicates the condition is not a disability, a command should initiate separation proceedings.  In this case, the Applicant was recommended to be administratively separated for the convenience of the government, and it was determined he had a medical condition, not a disability.

Based on the Applicant’s condition at the time of separation, the Board determined the Applicant met the requirements for separation for a Condition, not a Disability (CND).  The characterization for this reason is Honorable unless an Uncharacterized or General (Under Honorable Conditions) is warranted.  The Applicant served more than 180 days and was not eligible for an Uncharacterized discharge.  An Honorable characterization of service is warranted when the quality of a member’s service generally meets the standard of acceptable conduct and performance for Naval personnel.  Further, an honorable discharge characterization does not require flawless military service; many veterans are separated with an honorable characterization despite some relatively minor or infrequent misconduct.  A General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge is warranted when the quality of the member’s service has been honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s service record.  

The Board found insufficient evidence of any negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty that outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s service record.  Consequently, by unanimous decision, the Board found an upgrade to Honorable warranted.  Relief granted.

Decision

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s issues, summary of service,  record entries, and discharge process, the Board found .  Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall  HONORABLE, the narrative reason for separation shall  SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY with a corresponding separation code of JFF1, and the reentry code shall  RE-3P.  The Applicant is not eligible for further reviews by the NDRB.  The Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records, 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 for further review using DD Form 149.  

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

Additional NDRB Reviews: After receiving a NDRB Document Review, an Applicant remains eligible for a Personal Appearance/Telephonic Hearing if the application is received by the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s date of discharge.  The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claim(s) related to their discharge as well as evidence of post-service accomplishments.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing by an Attorney (or Advocate) is recommended but not required.  There are veterans organizations such as the American Legion and the Disabled American Veterans that are willing to provide guidance to former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade.  However, if you have been discharged for more than 15 years, already had a personal appearance hearing, or otherwise exhausted your opportunity to be heard by the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490, or http://www.secnav.navy.mil/mra/bcnr/Pages/default.aspx for further review.

Appeal Procedures on NDRB Decision: If you contest the NDRB’s decision in your case AND you already contested the NDRB’s previous decision at a Personal Appearance Hearing or otherwise exhausted your opportunity before the NDRB (or it has been more than 15 years since your discharge), the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490, or http://www.secnav.navy.mil/mra/bcnr/Pages/default.aspx for further review.  The BCNR is the highest level of administrative review within the Department of the Navy/Marine Corps to correct errors or injustices to member’s records.

Complaint Procedures on Format: If you believe the decision in your case is ambiguous, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional document requirements of DoD Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Instruction to the Joint Service Review Activity (JSRA), OUSD (P&R) PI-LP, The Pentagon, Washington, DC  20301-4000.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the DoD Instruction 1332.28 before submitting such a complaint.  This complaint procedure does not permit a challenge on the merits of the NDRB’s decision; the JSRA is designed solely to ensure that the NDRB decisional documents meet applicable requirements for clarity and responsiveness.  Therefore, if you are contesting the merits of the NDRB’s decision and already had a NDRB personal appearance hearing or otherwise exhausted your opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may appeal/petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490, or http://www.secnav.navy.mil/mra/bcnr/Pages/default.aspx for further review.

Service [VA] Benefits: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of facilitating access to VA benefits.  Regulations limit the NDRB’s review solely to a determination of the propriety, equity, and clemency of a discharge.  Consequently, the Applicant should petition the VA, which determines eligibility for post-service benefits.  The VA conducts its own determination of eligibility based on service records and input from an Applicant upon their request.  (See www.va.gov/discharge-upgrade-instructions).  Therefore, if the NDRB grants a change to a discharge, the NDRB will notify the Commander, Navy Personnel Command or Commandant of the Marine Corps that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate; however, it is the Applicant’s responsibility to ensure these changes are incorporated into the record by the respective Service Headquarters.  Further, it is the Applicant’s sole responsibility to submit these changes to the VA for a determination of eligibility for VA Benefits.  Finally, the Applicant should refer to the Veterans Administration website (https://www.va.gov/) for information regarding VA benefits and healthcare.  Additionally, Veterans in acute suicidal crisis can go to any VA or non-VA health care facility for emergency health care at no cost – including inpatient or crisis residential care for up to 30 days and outpatient care for up to 90 days.  Veterans do not need to be enrolled in the VA system to use this benefit.  In order to find the nearest VA office to receive assistance with determining VA eligibility/access, the Applicant should refer to https://www.va.gov/find-locations. 

Employment/Educational Opportunities: The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.

Reenlistment/RE-code: The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.  An unfavorable “RE-CODE” is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment.  A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.

Medical Conditions and Misconduct: DoD disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation.  Appropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons.  Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board, and is processed subsequently for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings.  If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct or 

for any basis wherein an Other Than Honorable discharge is authorized, the medical board report is filed in the member’s terminated health record.  Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or other medical related reasons.  Only the BCNR can grant this type of narrative reason change.

Automatic Upgrades: There is no law or regulation that provides for an unfavorable discharge to be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct subsequent to leaving naval service.

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and/or Traumatic Brain Injury: For all claims involving PTSD and/or TBI, the NDRB’s review implemented the guidance set forth in the SECDEF Memorandum of 3 September 2014 (Supplemental guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder).  In accordance with U.S. Code, Title X, Section 1553 (d)(1) & (d)(2), the NDRB included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist and accorded the case sufficient priority to achieve an expedited resolution and a final decision.  If the Applicant’s claim of PTSD/TBI was based in whole or in part on sexual trauma, intimate partner violence, or spousal abuse, the NDRB obtained a review by a psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker with training on mental health issues associated with PTSD/TBI or other trauma.  

Post-Service Conduct: The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board reviews.  Documentation to support a post-service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s birth certificates (if applicable); character witness statements; documentation of community or church service; certification of non-involvement with civil authorities; evidence of financial stability or letters of good standing from banks, credit card companies, or other financial institutions; attendance at or completion of higher education (official transcripts); and documentation of a drug-free lifestyle.   The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate that in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

Issues Concerning Bad-Conduct Discharges (BCD): Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts, issues relating to the Applicant’s innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief.  With respect to a discharge adjudged by a special court-martial, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency.  Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed.  The NDRB does not have the jurisdictional authority to review a discharge or dismissal resulting from a general court-martial.

Board Membership: The names and votes of the members of the NDRB 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.

Military Sexual Trauma: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) uses the term "military sexual trauma" (MST) to refer to experiences of sexual assault or repeated, threatening sexual harassment experienced while on federal active duty, active duty for training, or inactive duty training.  To get confidential one-on-one help please contact the MST Coordinator at your nearest VA Medical Center or Call Safe Helpline at 1-877-995-5247 or visit www.mentalhealth.va.gov/msthome.asp.

Reporting Military Sexual Trauma: To report a military sexual trauma, you can make an anonymous report to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) by Text or Online.  The NCIS Tip Line provides service members, veterans and civilians a safe, discreet and ANONYMOUS option to report criminal and force protection threats within the USN and USMC without concerns of retaliation.  To report a crime by Text: Text 274637 (CRIMES); Type “NCIS” at the top of the message; and include as much detail as possible to ensure your tip can effectively be investigated.  To send your ANONYMOUS Tip via the online, go to https://www.tipsubmit.com/webtipsNAV.aspx?AgencyID=840.

Suicide Prevention: Veterans in emotional crisis or their loved ones can call the free and confidential Veterans Crisis Line at 1-800-273-8255 (then press 1); or chat online at http://www.veteranscrisisline.net, or send a text message to 838255 to connect with a caring, qualified Veteran Affairs Responder who can deal with any immediate crisis.  Additionally, Veterans in acute suicidal crisis can go to any VA or non-VA health care facility for emergency health care at no cost; you can use this benefit regardless of your discharge status, or enrollment in VA health care.  In order to find the nearest VA office to receive assistance, see Find your nearest VA medical center.