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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD06-00754

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20060511.  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 20070308.  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 Under Other Than Honorable Conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214.  Block 12a, Date Entered AD This Period, should read:  “02 07 22.”  The Commandant, Headquarters USMC, Quantico, VA, will be notified, recommending the DD Form 214 be corrected or reissued, as appropriate.

PART I - ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Applicant Issues,

The Applicant is claiming he had a mental disorder which manifested itself during his military service.

The Applicant is requesting an upgrade to receive health treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 4) (2)
Letter of temporary conservatory filed at Madera Superior Court on March 1, 2006 (3 pages)
Four pages from Applicant’s service record
Letter to Applicant from G_ R_, Member of Congress, dated December 6, 2005 (2 pages)
Request Pertaining to Military Records, Standard Form 180, dated February 16, 2006
Fifteen pages from Applicant’s medical records
Letter from A_ O_, LCSW , Madera County Behavioral Health Services, dated February 14, 2006 (5 pages)
Character Reference ltr from B_ H_, Applicant’s mother, undated
Character Reference ltr from D_ W. H_, Applicant’s father, dated May 29, 2006
Conservator documents (22 pages)
One hundred and twenty pages clinical records

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USMCR (DEP)	20020423 - 20020721	COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  20020722		Date of Discharge:  20040115

Length of Service (years, months, days):

Active:    01  05  24  (Does not exclude lost time.)
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  25 days
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  20

Years Contracted:  5

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  72

Highest Rank:  LCpl				MOS:  1391 (Bulk Fuel Specialist)

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.1 (3)				Conduct:  3.8 (3)

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as stated on the DD Form 214):  National Defense Service Medal, Expert Rifle Badge.

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.3.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

030411:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:  UA from Stud Admin Co, SOI (W) on or about 030302, 2050 and surrendered himself on or about 030321, 1815.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 112:  Drunk on duty.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $301.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 14 days.  Not appealed.

030411:	Counseling:  Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (You did without proper authority absent yourself from your appointed place of duty and also you were found drunk on post.), necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary warning issued.

030425:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:  UA from Stud Admin Co, SOI (W) on or about 030419 and surrendered himself on or about 030419, 0700.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $301.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 14 days.  Not appealed.

030617:	Counseling:  Applicant informed that I have been found unqualified for my original PEF code of (E&) Aviation Electronics Technician Bonus ($4000) due to disciplinary action.

030731:	Applicant to sick call John Randolph Psychiatric Center.  Diagnoses by competent medical authority.
	Admitting Diagnoses:  
	AXIS I: Major Depression, psychotic features, rule out schizophrenia, rule out psychosis.
	AXIS II: none
	AXIS III: none
	AXIS IV: Severe
	AXIS V: GAF 20
	
	Recommendation:  Consider complete psychiatric as well as medical evaluation.  Probably need to be started on antidepressant and antipsychotic.  The patient will be started on Zyprexa.  Monitor closely.
	[Extracted from Applicant’s supporting documents.]

030804:	Applicant released from John Randolph Psychiatric Center.
	
	Final Diagnoses
	AXIS I: Major Depression, psychotic features, rule out schizophrenia, rule out psychosis.
	AXIS II: none
	AXIS III: none
	AXIS IV: Severe
	AXIS V: GAF 60
	
	The Patient did respond well to medication management and treatment therapies.  He did reach a point where he was ready for discharge. On 20030804.  Patient prescribed Zoloft and Zyprexa.
	[Extracted from Applicant’s supporting documents.]
	
030915:	Mental Health Evaluation
	In my opinion this service member has the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings and was mentally responsible.
	AXIS I: Adjustment disorder with depressed mood.
	AXIS II: Personality disorder not otherwise specified with schizotypal features.
	AXIS III: None.
	Recommendations:
	SM’s condition and the problems presented by him do not appear amenable to hospitalization, treatment, transfer, disciplinary action, training, or reclassification to another type of duty within the military.  He will likely continue to have significant problems while on active duty.  It is unlikely that efforts to rehabilitate him or develop this Marine into a satisfactory member of the military will be successful.  It is recommended that this Marine be administratively separated expeditiously because this SM has a personality disorder that is so severe that his ability to function effectively in the military environment is significantly impaired and interferes with performance of duty.

031001:	Summary Court-Martial.
	Charge: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86:
	Specification: UA from appointed place of duty from 2131, 030901 to 1146, 030902.
	Finding: to Charge and the specification thereunder, guilty.
	Sentence: Reduction to E-2.
	CA action not found in service record.

031020:	Counseling:  Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (Repeated misconduct.), necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, and advised being processed for administrative discharge action.

031119:	Kenner Army Health Clinic Community Counseling Center by P_ P. K_, LCSW, MAC, Clinical Director.
	Applicant evaluated at Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) on 031106.  Applicant meets the criteria for the diagnosis of alcohol abuse.  Recommend Applicant be enrolled in ASAP.

031205:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge as under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  The factual basis for this recommendation was two nonjudicial punishments and summary court-martial.  Applicant informed the least favorable character of service possible was as other than honorable.

031209:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

031209:	Commanding Officer recommended Applicant’s discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

040109:	GCMCA, Commanding General, Training Command, directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20040115 by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A) with a service characterization of under other than 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).  

The Applicant is requesting a discharge characterization upgrade to honorable.  When a Marine’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service under honorable conditions.  Characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions 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 the award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 2 occasions for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and one Summary Court-Martial hearing.  The Applicant’s misconduct included unauthorized absence and Drunk on post.  The Applicant’s conduct, which form the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflect his misconduct, and fall below that required for an honorable characterization of service.  An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate.  Relief is therefore denied.

The Applicant is claiming he had a mental disorder which manifested itself during his military service.  The separation process was in strict compliance with the Marine Corps Separation Manual.  For the edification of the Applicant, the mere presence of a personality disorder is not a bar to Naval Service.  There is no evidence in the record to suggest that the Applicant was not responsible for his misconduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  In the Applicant’s case, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity in the Applicant’s discharge based merely on the fact that Applicant was permitted to continue his service despite the presence of a diagnosed personality disorder.  Therefore, the NDRB considered the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

The Applicant is requesting an upgrade to receive health treatment from the department of Veterans Affairs.  The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the Naval Discharge Review Board.  There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veterans' 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 of 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.  The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any additional evidence related to this discharge.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 01 Sep 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