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

DOCTOR, Stephen M., 279-80-7842, ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD04-00892

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20040505.  The Applicant requested the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requested a documentary record review.  The Applicant did not designate a representative on his DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20041015.  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/CONDITION NOT A PHYSICAL OR MENTAL DISABILITY, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6203.2.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “I was active duty for more than 180 days.  Was forced to sign a Notification of Rights when put in Medical Rehiblitaion platoon, even though wasn’t charged with anything. I was also told in Separations class that I should recive honorable.”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 1 and 4)
DD Form 149, dated October 18, 2001
Applicant’s letter to the Board, dated June 29, 2004
Six pages from Applicant’s service record
Certificate of completion, dated March 21, 2003
Certification of Identification card

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   			None			HON
	Inactive: USMCR (J)		000419 - 000918	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  000919		Date of Discharge:  010928

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  00  10
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  47

Highest Rank:  PFC			MOS:  9900, Basic Marine

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.2 (1)		Conduct:  4.2 (1)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  RSB

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNCHARACTERIZED/CONDITION NOT A PHYSICAL OR MENTAL DISABILITY, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6203.2.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

010119:	Applicant initial injury during SOI training.

010120:	Applicant to medical for diagnosis of bilateral foot pain after “9-mile force march” on 19 Jan 00.  Diagnosed with transverse fracture of 4th metatarsal of left foot.  X-ray also documented stress fracture of the 4th metatarsal of the right foot.

010123:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Pneumonia/broken feet a physical condition not a disability.] Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.  

010312:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with an uncharacterized by reason of convenience of the government for a physical condition not a disability.

010312:	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.

010509:	Medical Officer evaluation noted:  “(Applicant) still expressing bilat(eral) foot pain.”  
Assessment: “Bilat 4th MT stress fx, persistent symptoms.
Recommendation:  Podiatry consult for treatment options.
Applicant related his desire to get out if recovery time is excessive and “returning to USMC in future once pain resolves.”

010724:	Applicant having been counseled by a Medical Officer waived his right (with a full understanding of the implications of doing so) to have his medical condition evaluated by the Physical Evaluation Board.

010803:	Medical evaluation by Medical Officer, Naval Hospital, Camp Lejeune, NC:  19-year-old male with a history Chronic right foot pain status post Right 4th Metatarsal fracture (DNEPTE) unable to complete the rigors of SOI training.  Failed to return to duty despite 5 months of treatment.  Waived his rights to a Physical Evaluation Board and is recommended for administrative discharge.

010913:	Commanding officer recommended discharge with an uncharacterized by reason of convenience of the government for a condition no a physical or mental disability.  The factual basis for this recommendation was your physical condition (right foot injury), which is so severe that your ability to function effectively in the military environment is significantly impaired.  

010921:	GCMCA [Commanding Officer, School of Infantry, Training Command, Camp Lejeune, NC] directed the Applicant's discharge with an uncharacterized by reason of physical condition not a disability.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was separated from the service on 20010928 with an uncharacterized discharge by reason of convenience of the government 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:  By regulation, members notified of discharge proceedings within the first 180 days of continuous active duty 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 on active duty to warrant a discharge change to “honorable.”  The Applicant was notified of his commands intent to separate him from the service by reason of convenience of the government due to a condition not a physical disability on 12 March 2001, which was 174 days of continuous active duty.  Relief denied.  

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 Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment opportunities as requested in the Applicant’s letter to the Board.  Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.  In the Applicant’s case, the Board discovered no impropriety or inequity; thereby, considering the Applicant’s discharge proper.   This issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.

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.  Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E, effective 18 Aug 95 until 31 Aug 2001), 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