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

Docket No. MD04-00900

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

ex-Pvt, USMC
Docket No. MD04-00900

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20040503.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests a documentary 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 20041022.  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 DISABILITY, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6203.2.

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214.  Block 13, Decorations, etc. should read “NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL” vice “NONE.”  The Commandant, Headquarters USMC, Quantico, VA, will be notified, recommending the DD Form 214 be corrected or reissued, as appropriate.

Issues, as stated

No issues were submitted by the Applicant. 

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
USMC pay audit form

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		030415 - 030520	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  030521		Date of Discharge:  031022

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:  00  05  02
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  84

Highest Rank:  Pvt			MOS:  9900

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  NMF*		Conduct:  NMF

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

*No Marks Found

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

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

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

030621:	Dropped from training to Medical Rehabilitation Platoon (MRP) due to PFPS and tendonitis in the right knee.

030912:	Returned to training with Platoon 2017.

030922:	Dropped to MRP due to tension headaches.

031014:	Medical evaluation by neurology department, NMC San Diego, CA diagnosed Applicant with chronic migraine headaches, EPTE.  Recommended entry level separation.
	
031015:	Commanding Officer recommended an uncharacterized discharge by reason of convenience of the government for a condition not a disability.  The factual basis for this recommendation was his diagnosis with recurrent headaches, migraines.  Applicant is not physically qualified for enlistment.

031017:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for an uncharacterized discharge by reason of convenience of the government for a condition not a disability.

031017:	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.

031021:	GCMCA [CG, MCRD, SDCA] directed the Applicant's uncharacterized discharge by reason of condition not a disability.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20031022 with an entry level separation by reason of convenience of the government due to a condition not a 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).

The Applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board.  The Applicant was administratively separated with an entry level separation, not an honorable discharge as noted on the document submitted by the Applicant.  By regulation, members discharged 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 less than six months in the military to warrant a change of discharge.  With respect to non-service related administrative matters, an uncharacterized separation is considered the equivalent of an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) characterization.

The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.  Normally, to permit relief, an inequity or impropriety must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such inequity or impropriety 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 P1900.16F, effective 
01 September 2001 and Present), 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.