Author: CAP
Last saved by: shirley.robertson
Company: NCPB

Docket No. MD04-00260

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

ex-LCpl, USMC
Docket No. MD04-00260

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20031120.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to medical.  The Applicant requests a documentary record review.  The Applicant listed the Disabled American Veterans as his representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040720.  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 and narrative reason 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.  “My discharge is improper because up until I was classified a Manic Depression, I was considered a stellar Marine.  I received a meritorious promotion, Ltr of App, a Cercom, and was being considered for MSG duty by the career planner.

    My discharge is also improper because if having Manic Depression is a medical disorder, than I should have gotten a medical discharge.  I feel that I have done nothing wrong to deserve the treatment in which I was given, and hope and pray that because of my medical condition that I am not punished for the rest of my life because of something I never asked for.”

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

2.  “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 his current General, Under Honorable Conditions to an Honorable discharge.  Additionally, the FSM requests the Narrative Reason be changed to reflect a Medical Discharge.The FSM served on active service from 6/9/97 to 1/15/99 at which time he was discharged due to Personality Disorder. The FSM contends the current discharge is improper because up until the FSM was classified as a manic depressant, he was considered a stellar Marine.  The FSM received awards and considerations due to good performance.  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 (c), Par. (f) (1).In continuance, the FSM goes onto explain that the problem with his active duty was not derived from his conduct, but from his disability of Manic Depression. 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 5420.174C.Under the premises of equitable relief, we believe the Board can change the narrative reason to a Medical, removing the notation of Personality Disorder. As to the request of the change of discharge to reflect an Honorable discharge we leave that to a determination by the Board.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.”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214
Statement from Applicant
Letter of recommendation from M_ N_
Letter of recommendation from G_ C_
Letter of recommendation from D_ K_, Major, USA

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR (J)		970523 - 970608	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  970609		Date of Discharge:  990115

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  07  07
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  50

Highest Rank:  LCpl

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.7 (2)			Conduct:  4.7 (2)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  CC, Letter of Recognition

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  2

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:

980713:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from 0631, 980701 to 2345, 980702.
Awarded forfeiture of $251.00 (suspended for 6 months), restriction and extra duties for 14 days.  Not appealed.

980804:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Losing military ID card and meal card, lack of responsibility, violation of Article 86 resulting in CO level NJP.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

980928:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Dependability, dealing with authority, adapting to military way of life, and going UA.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

981002:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Failing field day inspection and being insubordinate towards an NCO.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

981112:	Medical evaluation by a military psychiatrist concluded that the Applicant’s borderline personality disorder was so severe that his ability to function effectively in the military environment was significantly impaired.  Applicant posed a continuing risk of harm to himself or others.  Also diagnosed with alcohol dependence.

981207:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under honorable conditions (general) for the convenience of the government due to a personality disorder, based upon a diagnosed personality disorder as evidenced by psychiatric evaluation.

981207:	Applicant advised of 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.

981207:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general) for the convenience of the government due to a personality disorder, based upon a diagnosed personality disorder as evidenced by psychological evaluation and a disorder of character and behavior, which interferes with his ability to function in a military environment.

990105:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.  

990111:	GCMCA [CG, 2d MARDIV] directed the Applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general) for convenience of the government due to a personality disorder.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19990115 under honorable conditions (general) for convenience of the government due to a personality disorder (A and B).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C).  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 (D and E).

Issues 1 and 2.  The Applicant was diagnosed with a borderline personality disorder on 19981112.  The psychiatrist recommended that the Applicant be administratively separated.  No other narrative reason more clearly describes the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s processing for administrative separation.  Relief to the narrative reason for separation is denied.

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.  The Applicant’s service was marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on one occasion and adverse counseling entries on other occasions.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service.  An upgrade to honorable is inappropriate.  Relief 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.  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 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.  

D.  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.

E.  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.