Author: CAP
Last saved by: Department of the Navy
Company: NCPB

Docket No. MD02-01089

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

 ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD02-01089

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020725, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions (in order to receive TAMP benefits for 4 months after the discharge date).  The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 030424.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain:  UNCHARACTERIZED/ CONDITION NOT A PHYSICAL OR MENTAL DISABILITY, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6203.2.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1. To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing in response to the letter I received from the Department of the Navy.  The letter stated that (Applicant) did not qualify for TAMP benefits because he did not receive an honorable or general under honorable discharge.  (Applicant) had a severe heat stroke and received an uncharacterized discharge.  When I found out that (Applicant) was being discharged for medical reasons I immediately contacted DEERS to find out how long we would have medical coverage.  At that time I was pregnant and concerned about (Applicant's) health and my prenatal care.  When I spoke with a DEERS representative he told me that we would have four months of transitional assistance starting after (Applicant's) discharge date, July 3l, 2001. At that point I was not documenting phone calls because we hadn't had any problems with the insurance.

During this four month time period I had my daughter and had my gallbladder removed.  If I thought that we weren't covered by the military, insurance I would have gotten on Medicaid to have my daughter.  Also, (Applicant's) current insurance started one week after I had surgery therefore I would have waited to have my gallbladder removed until that time if I thought we didn't have insurance.  If we didn't have insurance why would TriWest Healthcare Alliance send us a letter stating that we would need to cancel our insurance if we wanted to end coverage, this letter is dated February 01. 2001.  We also received another letter from TriWest, dated February 15, 2001, stating that we were only liable to pay a six dollar co-pay for several dates of service during this four month period.  Lastly, I received referrals from the hospital for my OB care and for the surgery.  If we did not have insurance then why would TriWest approve these dates of service, send a letter stating that they will pay for claims, and send us a letter saying that we have insurance unless we cancel?  We never received anything from DEERS, TriWest, or the Marines stating that our coverage would end.

Please consider changing (Applicant's) separation code so that our medical bills for four months after his discharge date will be covered.  I have included a copy of (Applicant's) DD form 214, the letters I received from TriWest, the referrals I got from the hospital, and copies of the letters from DMDC Support Office and the Department of the Navy.

Sincerely, [Signed by Applicant and his Spouse]

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
Examination Of Benefits from TriWest (3 pages)
TriCare ltr dtd Feb 01, 2001
TriCare ltr dtd Feb 15, 2001
Referral and Consultation for care received dtd Mar 3, 2000
Referral and Consultation for care received dtd Nov 13, 2000
Letter from Dept. of Defense, dtd May 21, 2001, concerning entitlement to Transition Assistance (TAMP) benefits
Letter from Dept. of the Navy, dtd Jul 25, 2001, concerning TAMP benefits

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		991124 - 000102	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  000103		Date of Discharge:  000719

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:  00  06  17
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  20			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  61

Highest Rank:  PFC

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  NMF*			Conduct:  NMF*

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  Rifle Expert Badge

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

*No Marks Found in service record book.

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

UNCHARACTERIZED/ CONDITION NOT A PHYSICAL OR MENTAL DISABILITY, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6203.2. [MEMBER AT HOME OF RECORD AT TIME OF DISCHARGE, NOT AVAILABLE FOR SIGNATURE.]

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

991124:	Enlistment waiver granted for pre-service drug use/involvement.

000420:	Heat Casualty Treatment Record:  Pt was at Grenade range and was on 3 mile hump at approximate half way point, pt lost consciousness.  Pt was brought straight to clinic by Corpsman.  Symptoms - lightheadedness, weakness, nausea, cramps and talkative.
	Final Assessment:  Suspected Heat Stroke.
	Disposition:  Transport to Naval Hospital Camp Pendleton.

000505:	Naval Hospital Camp Pendleton:  Hospitalized and treated for Rhabdomyolysis and released on Apr 25, 2000.  [EXTRACTED FROM APPLICANT'S SEPARATION PHYSICAL EXAM.]

000517:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct [diagnosed with Rhabdomyolysis - that hinders his ability to train]. Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.  

000525:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with an uncharacterized service by reason of convenience of the government for a physical condition not a disability - Rhabdomyolysis, and this condition hinders ability to train and has also been determined to be incompatible with continued military service.

000525:	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.

000525:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge with uncharacterized service by reason of convenience of the government for a condition not a physical or mental disability.  The factual basis for this recommendation was due to a result of his heat casualty, reevaluation, and diagnosis by medical authorities as a treatment failure due to member's unsuccessful rehabilitation.

000630:	GCMCA [CG, MCB, Camp Pendleton, CA] directed the Applicant's discharge by reason of physical condition not a disability - Rhabdomyolysis, with characterization of service as uncharacterized.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged while at home of record on 000719 with uncharacterized service due to condition not a physical or mental 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 and equitable (C and D).

Issue 1.  There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining veterans’ or other benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.  The Board’s regulations limit its review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.  By regulation, members who are processed for discharge within the first 180 days of enlistment are given characterization of service as “uncharacterized” unless there were unusual circumstances regarding performance or conduct which would merit an “honorable” characterization.  The Applicant’s service record did not contain any unusual circumstances during his six months in the military to warrant a change of discharge.  With respect to non-service related administrative matters (such as the Department of Veterans Affairs, civilian employment, etc.), an uncharacterized separation is considered the equivalent of an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) characterization.  Relief is therefore denied.

The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or inequity is evident 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.  Relief not warranted.

The Applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of his discharge.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.	Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E, effective 18 Aug 
95), 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

The remaining portion of this document is divided into 4 Parts: Part I - Applicant’s Issues and Documentation, Part II - Summary of Service, Part III – Rationale for Decision and Pertinent Regulation/Law, Part IV - Information for the Applicant.
INDEX:   A2900/A9453/A9241/A9445/A2901/A9221