Author: CAP
Last saved by: joyce.meeks
Company: NCPB

Docket No. MD05-01121

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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

 ex-Pvt, USMC
Docket No. MD05-01121

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050622.  The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests 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 20051221.  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 General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of unsatisfactory performance.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“I would like to continue and further my career in security and criminal Justice, and feel that my General/under Honorable is inequitable being on the basis of an administrative separation.  I feel having an Honorable discharge will allow me to better advance in my current career by giving me the ability to apply for higher positions in order to do the best I can with my skills and abilities.”

Documentation

Only the service record book and medical record were reviewed.  The Applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board’s consideration.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USMCR (DEP)	20010206 - 20011008	COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  20011009		Date of Discharge:  20020710

Length of Service (years, months, days):

Active:    00  09  02
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  None
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  19

Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  91

Highest Rank:  PFC				MOS:  9971

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

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

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as stated on the DD Form 214):  None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6206.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

020206:	Sick Call Chit:  Applicant had a complaint of depression.  Medical Officer diagnosed Marine with situational depression and recommended 5 days light duty and requested the Applicant be dropped to SAC-Medical pending evaluation.

020206:	Counseling:  Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (Counseled due to not performing daily duties in an appropriate manner.  Personal issues are a hindrance, and they are adversely effecting [the Applicant’s] ability to continue training), necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

020207:	Naval Hospital Camp Pendleton Mental Health Services Report:
	Diagnosis:
	AXIS I:  Adjustment disorder unspecified.
	AXIS II:  None.
	AXIS III:  None.
	AXIS IV:  Routine military stressors.
	AXIS V:  Current GAF 71-80.
	Treatment Plan:  
1.)	The patient is fit for duty and fit to return to training.  He is not suicidal and is not threatening self or others harm
2.)	The patient has advised that he may refuse to train because he has made up his mind that he wants his old life back and cannot adapt here.
3.)	Not receptive to therapy to assist with adaptation.  No follow up appt set at this time.  However if he does decide he wants mental health assistance I will be happy to see him again.

020225:	Naval Hospital Camp Pendleton:
	Assessment: 
Adjustment disorder with disturbance of conduct.  
Malingering: Diagnostic criteria for the V code as follows: “The essential feature of malingering is the intentional production of false or grossly exaggerated physical or psychological symptoms, motivated by external incentives such as avoiding military duty, avoiding work, obtaining financed compensation, evading criminal prosecution, or obtaining drugs.”
	Plan: 
(1) Due to the individual’s insistence that he was suicidal, he is being transported to a locked psychiatric unit at HMCSD at this time.  I have briefed the accepting physician Dr. R_ on the malingering issue.
(2) Strongly recommend the command handle this matter overall as a malingering issue.  This individual does clearly know the difference between right and wrong and he clearly understands the consequences of his behavior.  He may be held accountable for this continued misuse of mental health resources.
(3) No follow up is scheduled.  This individual is not amenable to the behavioral therapy that has been offered.

020225:	Applicant admitted to Naval Medical Center, San Diego.

020305:	Applicant released from Naval Medical Center, San Diego.  
Diagnosis:
AXIS I: Adjustment disorder with depressed and anxious mood.  
AXIS II: Personality disorder not otherwise specified - histrionic, borderline, narcissistic, avoidant.  
AXIS III: No diagnosis.  
AXIS IV: Occupational problems.
	Plan and Recommendations:
	The patient is currently neither suicidal nor homicidal at this time.
	The patient is not in need of psychiatric medication at this time.
	The patient is in need of outpatient care, which will be provided by Camp Pendleton Mental Health with Dr D_ on 3/11/02 at 1100.
	
020311:	Naval Hospital Camp Pendleton: 
	Assessment: 
1.)	Malingering (Primary)
2.)	Adjustment disorder with disturbance of conduct.
	Plan: Continue to provide supportive therapy as needed.  Provide the individual with education on more adaptive coping skills.

020404:	Naval Hospital Camp Pendleton: 
Assessment: Anxiety.  Sleep disturbance due to anxiety.
Plan: Follow up with Dr. D_ as scheduled. Meds.  DNS cautions.  RTC any problem.

020404:	Counseling:  Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (In that on 020401 Private O_, N_ M. (Applicant) was brought before the Battalion Commander for allegedly feigning mental derangement for the purpose of avoiding work, duty, or service.  Applicant was ordered to return to training and continue counseling as needed in order to improve coping skills), necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

020409:	Mental Health Progress Note:
	Assessment: 
Malingering.  
Adjustment disorder with disturbance of conduct.
	Plan: 
1.)	 Pt is fit for return to training.
2.)	 I will consult with Dr R_ to obtain his recommendation for follow up with the pt.

020412:	Counseling:  Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (SNM is recommended for an administrative separation for not correcting his deficiencies as noted in the previous 6105 counseling dated on 020206.), necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

020610:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for general (under honorable conditions) discharge by reason of misconduct, specifically unsatisfactory performance.  The least favorable characterization of service possible is general (under honorable conditions).  The factual basis for this recommendation was three 6105’s in the last four months.  Through actions, [the Applicant has] demonstrated that [he is] incapable of continued service in the United States Marine Corps.  

020610:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult, elected to waive all rights.

020610:	Commanding Officer, Headquarters and Support Battalion, School of Infantry Training Command, Camp Pendleton, CA, recommended to Commanding General, Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, CA.,  Applicant’s general (under honorable conditions) discharge by reason of unsatisfactory performance, specifically unsatisfactory performance of assigned tasks and duties in a manner that does not contribute to unit readiness and/or mission accomplishment.  The factual basis for this recommendation was three 6105’s.  Through his actions and unsatisfactory performance of assigned tasks and duties in a manner that does not contribute to unit readiness and/or mission accomplishment, Private First Class O_ (Applicant) has demonstrated that he is incapable of continued service in the United States Marine Corps.  Commanding Officer’s comments:  “Private First Class O_ (Applicant) was counseled on 12 April 2002 in accordance with the requirements of MARCORSEPMAN par, but failed to correct his deficiency and was advised that he was going to be administratively separated from the Marine Corps.  SNM was also counseled on 2 February and 4 April 2002 on his deficiencies and each time SNM failed to correct his deficiencies.  Private First Class O_ (Applicant) was advised that he was being administratively separated from the Marine Corps, due to his failure of correcting his deficiencies.”

020611:	Applicant to voluntary leave.

020624:	GCMCA, Commanding General, Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, CA, directed the Applicant's discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of unsatisfactory performance.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20020710 by reason of unsatisfactory performance (A) with a service characterization of general (under honorable conditions).  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 (B and C).  

When a Marine’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.  A general discharge is warranted when negative aspects of a member’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member’s military record.  The Applicant received two retention warnings for his failure to perform daily duties in an appropriate manner and for allegedly feigning mental derangement for the purposes of avoiding work, duty or service.  The Applicant was subsequently counseled and advised of the recommendation for administrative discharge for failing to correct the discrepancies noted in his retention warnings.  The Applicant’s performance and conduct, which form the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflect his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the Marine Corps.  Relief is not warranted.

For the Applicant’s edification, there is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veteran’s benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.  Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.  

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.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Paragraph 6206, UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 01 September 2001 until Present.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety.

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity.

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 “http://Boards.law.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:

		Secretary of the Navy 	Council of Review Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023