ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20110124
Characterization of Service Received:  
Narrative Reason for Discharge:  
Authority for Discharge:  MARCORSEPMAN 

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to: 
	Narrative Reason change to: 

Summary of Service
Prior Service:
Inactive:	USMCR (DEP)	20050801 - 20051010  	Active:	R 20051011 - 20060407 HON
				USMCR 20061013 - 20070930 HON
				USMCR 20080211 - 20080807 HON

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  20090130	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Months
Date of Discharge:  20091125	Highest Rank:  
Length of Service:    Years    Months  25  Days
Education Level:  	AFQT:  88
MOS:  0431
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):  NFIR / NFIR	Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle MM SMCRM GWOTSM NDSM MM

Periods of UA/CONF:  	

NJP:  NONE	SCM:  NONE	SPCM:  NONE	CC:  NONE 

Retention Warning Counseling:  1

- 20090811:	For diagnosis with borderline personality disorder by a PhD level psychologist and recommended for administrative discharge

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed
Related to Military Service:
	DD 214:		Service/Medical Record:		Other Records:	
Related to Post-Service Period:
	Employment:		Finances:		Education/Training:	
	Health/Medical Records:		Rehabilitation/Treatment:		Criminal Records:	
	Personal Documentation:		Community Service:		References:	
	Department of VA letter:		Other Documentation:	
		Additional Statements:
	From Applicant:		From/To Representation:		From/To Congress member:	

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Paragraph 6203.3 CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 1 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 II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs, Part V, Para 502, Propriety and Para 503, Equity.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant contends her discharge was inequitable, because she was discharged due to a mental disorder and not for disorderly conduct.
2.	The Applicant contends she was treated unfairly after she refused Permanent Change of Station orders that did not suit her.
3.	The Applicant believes her post- service conduct warrants consideration for upgrading her discharge.

Decision

Date:  20120503		Location: Washington D.C.	 Representation: NONE

By a vote of  the Characterization shall  .
By a vote of  the Narrative Reason shall  .

Discussion

The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.  In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  The Applicant’s record of service included one 6105 counseling warning.  It did not include any non-judicial punishments or trials by court-martial for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  The Applicant was administratively processed for separation by her command following a diagnosis with borderline personality disorder by a PhD level psychologist who recommended expeditious administrative separation.  When notified of administrative separation processing, the Applicant exercised her rights to consult with a qualified counsel and submit a written statement.  The Applicant was not entitled to an administrative board.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends her discharge is inequitable, because she was discharged due to a mental disorder and not for disorderly conduct.  On 28 July 2009, a qualified medical officer diagnosed the Applicant as having Adjustment Disorder with anxiety and depressed mood as well as Borderline Personality Disorder and recommended expeditious administrative separation.  She was not discharged due to a mental disorder, but was discharged expeditiously after the diagnosis of having a Personality Disorder.  The NDRB determined that the diagnosis and separation for Personality Disorder was proper.

Marine Corps regulations state the characterization of service for a Marine separated for Personality Disorder is either Honorable or General (Under Honorable Conditions) as determined by the Marine’s service record.  Standards of performance and conduct as determined by Performance Evaluation System, Individual Records Administration Manual, and customs of the service form the primary basis for determining characterization of service.  Characterization of service at discharge is the recognition of a service member’s performance and conduct during a period of enlistment and is not necessarily dependent upon the narrative reason for separation.  An Honorable characterization of service is warranted when the quality of a member’s service generally meets the standard of acceptable conduct and performance for Naval personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization of service would be clearly inappropriate.  A General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge is warranted when the quality of the member’s service has been honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s service record.  In-service documentation found in the Applicant’s service record, corroborated by documentation she submitted, indicates she was hospitalized due to depression for 72 hours in 2006 while a member of the Selected Marine Corps Reserve.  However, she failed to disclose this information on her medical questionnaire when she enlisted onto active duty.  Her command considered her failure to disclose this information fraudulent and used this fraudulent enlistment to base its decision to characterize her service as General (Under Honorable Conditions).  The NDRB concluded her fraudulent enlistment was a negative aspect that was significant enough to warrant characterizing her service as General (Under Honorable Conditions).  Relief denied.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends she was treated unfairly after she refused Permanent Change of Station orders that did not suit her.  The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs.  The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support her issue.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support her contention that she was treated unfairly after refusing Permanent Change of Station orders.  The Applicant’s statement alone is not proof of being mistreated and does not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.  Relief denied.

Issue 3:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant believes her post- service conduct, as evidenced by her employment as a banker, business owner, college attendance, and aspirations to go to law school, warrants consideration for upgrading her discharge.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re-characterization of a discharge.  However, there is no law, or regulation, that 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.  Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have been found to exist during the period of enlistment in question.  Besides the Applicant’s personal statement and her statement on the DD Form 293, she failed to provide any documentary evidence on her behalf for post-service consideration.  The Applicant could have provided documentation as detailed in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum with the recognition that completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post-service conduct establishes that the significant in-service negative aspects of her behavior were an aberration.  Without post-service documentary evidence, the Board determined that the awarded characterization of service shall remain General (Under Honorable Conditions).  Relief denied.

Summary:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service,  record entries, and discharge process, the Board found   Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall   and the narrative reason for separation shall remain .  The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of  discharge.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum for additional information.

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

Complaint Procedures:  If you believe 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 Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Instruction to the Joint Service Review Activity, OUSD (P&R) PI-LP, The Pentagon, Washington, DC  20301-4000.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the Instruction 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 Instruction 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “http://Boards.law.af.mil.”

Additional Reviews:  After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s 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.  There are veterans organizations such as the American Legion and the Disabled American Veterans that are willing to provide guidance to former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade.  If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted their opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 for further review.

Service Benefits:  The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  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.

Employment/Educational Opportunities:  The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.

Reenlistment/RE-code:  Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, the NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code.  Only the BCNR can make changes to reenlistment codes.  Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.  An unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment.  A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.

Medical Conditions and Misconduct:  DoD disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation.  Appropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons.  Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board, and is processed subsequently for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings.  If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct or for any basis wherein an Other Than Honorable discharge is authorized, the medical board report is filed in the member’s terminated health record.  Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or other medical related reasons.  Only the BCNR can grant this type of narrative reason change.

Automatic Upgrades - There is no law or regulation that provides for an unfavorable discharge to be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct subsequent to leaving naval service.

Post-Service Conduct:  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board reviews.  Documentation to support a post-service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s birth certificates (if applicable); character witness statements; documentation of community or church service; certification of non-involvement with civil authorities; evidence of financial stability or letters of good standing from banks, credit card companies, or other financial institutions; attendance at or completion of higher education (official transcripts); and documentation of a drug-free lifestyle.   The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate  in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

Issues Concerning Bad-Conduct Discharges (BCD): Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts, issues relating to the Applicant’s innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief.  With respect to a discharge adjudged by a special court-martial, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency.  Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed.  The NDRB does not have the jurisdictional authority to review a discharge or dismissal resulting from a general court-martial.

Board Membership:  The names and votes of the members of the NDRB 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