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

Docket No. MD04-00376

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

ex-Pvt, USMC
Docket No. MD04-00376

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20031230.  The Applicant requested the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests a documentary record review.  The Applicant did not list a representative on his DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040812.  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: UNCHARACTERIZED/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:

Issue 1:  “I’m requesting consideration to upgrade my discharge to “Honorable.”  I served for 7 month 13 days and I was in an Infantry Outfit as a private.  I had completed my training up to this time and was assigned an MOS of 0311 Security Forces.  I was on a Force March when I suffered heat exhaustion and was taken to the Camp Lejeune Hospital.  I feel that I was misdiagnosed with a personality disorder.  I have a medical statement from Cleveland MEPS from a psychiatrist that states in hi medical opinion that I do not have such a disorder.  I’m requesting this discharge upgrade so that I can continue my military career in Ohio National Guard.”

Applicant marked the box "I HAVE LISTED ADDITIONAL ISSUES AS AN ATTACHMENT TO THIS APPLICATION."

Additional issues submitted by Applicant’s as an attachment to his DD 293.

Issue 2:  “09 December 2003

To Whom It May Concern;
The purpose of this letter is to explain any applicable reasons why I feel my service discharge upgrade is justified.
Before beginning I would like to say that I have no regrets about my life spent in the Marine Corps, I will never forget the things I learned or the core values that were instilled in me.  I still consider myself a Marine and I will die a Marine.
During my training at Paris Island, I earned the privilege of being the third squad leader and retained this position through my training.  Also at School of Infantry I earned the privilege of being squad leader.  As you can see I refused to accept “average” and drove myself to excel and be the best Marine I could be.
It was during training at Camp Geiger that the situation regarding my discharge arose.  While engaged in a weeklong training exercise, temperatures soared to 100 degrees accompanied by 100% humidity and 100% heat index.  Because of the weather conditions this was considered to be a Black Flag Day, this is declared when troop welfare could be in danger due to inclement conditions and all training exercises should be stopped.  However, the company CO chose to push on and to continue our fifty-mile hump.  Due to this, three troops, including myself suffered heat injuries.  Fortunately, I only experienced a temporary blackout and a temporary fluxuation in my blood pressure.  My fellow Marines weren’t so lucky, suffering from permanent brain damage.
Due to this situation I was placed in medical and subsequently into MatCo (Marines awaiting Training Co.), during this time I had weekly medical appointments when I was questioned about how I was feeling.  I was anxious to return to training so that I could get out into the field.  I stated to the Doc that I was upset about being in Medical.  She then sent me to a psychologist to “discuss my feelings”, next thing I knew I had papers shoved in front of me and someone telling me I’m getting discharged due to convenience of the Marine Corps and the government.
Following my discharge I decided to continue my military career by enrolling in the ROTC program at Kent State University and enlisting in the Ohio National Guard.  During MEPS processing I was again sent to a shrink whose findings were that my discharge was unfounded and there was no reason why I should have been separated.
This is why I feel my service should be upgraded.  I pushed myself to be the best Marine I could be and the separation was no fault of mine.  I want my service to be recognized so that can continue to serve my country as soon as possible.

Semper Fi!
(Signed)
R_ S. H_ (Applicant)

Documentation

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

2 pages from Medical Record
Character Reference, undated
Character Reference, dtd 10/23/03
Character Reference, dtd November 10, 2003
Character Reference, dtd November 13, 2003
Army National Guard Recruiting Evaluation, 6 Jan 01
4 pages from Applicant’s SRB
3 pages form Applicant’s Medical Record
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member – 1)
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member – 4)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None	
	Inactive: None	

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  980121		Date of Discharge:  980903

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  07  13
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  52

Highest Rank:  Pvt

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.0 (1)			Conduct:  4.0 (1)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNCHARACTERIZED/PERSONALITY DISORDER, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6203.3.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

980612:	Applicant’s statements concerning making a “decision at the wrong time to join USMC.” (Applicant has) “hard time adjusting to every day life – gets real down & little things make him angry. – Misses being away from mother.”  “… wants to go to college & work old job for Citiparks Department.” during a medical follow-up for heat injury.  Applicant was referred to the Mental Health Clinic for a consult.

980612:	Applicant contracts for safety against suicidal and homicidal actions.

980625:	Medical evaluation by a military clinical psychologist concluded that the Applicant’s personality disorder was so severe that his ability to function effectively in the military environment was significantly impaired.

	AXIS I:  Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood
	
	AXIS II:  Personality Disorder with schizoid features

	AXIS III:  None

	(Applicant) wants to quit and go home.  He has a very difficult time when people yell at him.  He ha no motivation to be a Marine. … Persons with this personality type are continually in crisis and often consume considerable command attention and recourses with little return.  He is utterly unmotivated for continued service.  

980715:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for separation with an uncharacterized discharge for the convenience of the government due to a personality disorder, based upon a diagnosed personality disorder as evidenced by psychological evaluation.

980715:	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.

980715:	Commanding officer recommended separation with an uncharacterized discharge for the convenience of the government due to a personality disorder, based upon a diagnosed personality disorder as evidenced by psychological evaluation and the Applicant’s “long-standing disorder of character and behavior as to interfere with his ability to function effectively in the military environment.

980825:	GCMCA [Commanding General, Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune] directed the Applicant's separation from the service with an uncharacterized discharge for convenience of the government due to a personality disorder.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was separated on 19980903 with an uncharacterized discharge 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 & 2.  By regulation, members notified of discharged within the first 180 days of enlistment are given a service characterization of “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 short time in the military to warrant a discharge change to “honorable.”  Relief is therefore unwarranted.

The Applicant should be aware that, with respect to nonservice-related administrative matters, i.e., VA benefits, civilian employment, educational pursuits, etc., an uncharacterized separation shall be considered the equivalent of an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

The applicant was diagnosed with an “Adjustment Disorder w/Depressed Mood” and a “Personality Disorder w/schizoid features” by competent medical authority at the Mental Health Clinic, Camp Geiger Branch Medical Clinic, Camp Lejeune, NC, and was recommended for expeditious administrative separation from the U. S. Marine Corps.  The Board finds the Reason for Discharge, "Personality Disorder," accurately reflects the applicant's mental health status at the time of his discharge, and was proper and equitable at the time of issuance.  No other Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describe why the Applicant was discharged.  The contention that the personality disorder no longer exists or has been overcome does not provide a legitimate basis to revise official records, which were accurate at the time of issuance.  Relief denied.  

Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable "RE" code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment.  The NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Naval Service or any other branch of the Armed Forces.  A request for waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.  

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 additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments 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 P1900.16E), 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.