Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00121
Original file (MD03-00121.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-PVT, USMC
Docket No. MD03-00121

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 20021022, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to non-involuntary. The Applicant requested a personal appearance hearing discharge review before the Board in the Washington National Capital Region. The Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledgement letter to the Applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20030926. 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 and narrative reason 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 submitted

 1. I feel that my discharge is improper because of one isolated incident in my 5 months of service with no other problems. I was accused of having a Pulmonary Condition which was really an axeity attack I suffered when I learned my grandmother (who I am very close to) suffered a heart attack. I never had any Pulmonary problems before. As my Pulmonary test shows done in 2001. I have done everything I possibly can to try to obtain clearance for re-entry. I don’t feel my narrative for discharge explains anything for my discharging. I would like to request my discharge to be changed to honorable from uncharacterized. I also request my re-entry code be changed so I could easily obtain clearance to serve the United States of America. I have never suffered from any Pulmonary problems while in boot camp or any ever. I feel my rights to be a United States Marine were striped away unfairly and unjustified with no explanation of my discharge.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record (there was NO DISCHARGE PACKAGE AVAILABLE), the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Copies of DD Form 214 (2)
Pulmonary Function Laboratory Report (5 pages)
Letter from Applicant
DD Form 149
Letter from Applicant dated November 17, 2002 (2 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USMC              None
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 990119               Date of Discharge: 990702

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 05 14
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 34

 Highest Rank: PVT

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: NMA*                 Conduct: NMA

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: Rifle Marksman Badge

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

*No marks available for review.

 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 :

990527:  Applicant waives right to Physical Evaluation Board.

990615:  Applicant acknowledged understanding the provision of Article 15-29 of the MANMED for Separation from Active Duty.

990623:  Diagnosed with Asthma as a result of Pulmonary Function Tests.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19990702 with uncharacterized service 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. The Board does not consider the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s condition noted in his service medical record and the implied incorrect diagnosis to be of sufficient nature to warrant a change to his narrative reason for separation and to his characterization of service. Relief is therefore denied.

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.

Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Naval Service or any other branch of the Armed Forces. Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment. A request for waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter. Relief is therefore denied.

The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country. The discharge was proper and equitable. Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such error or inequity 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 P1900.16E, effective 18 Aug 95), 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      

Similar Decisions

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00180

    Original file (MD03-00180.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I was told that in order to have anything done about my knees, I would need to upgrade my discharge.” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USMCR (J) 000823 - 010521 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 010522 Date of Discharge: 011129 Length of...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00467

    Original file (MD02-00467.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-00467 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020226, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Dear Chairperson:After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the contentions as set forth by the appellant as follows; an upgrade of the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00703

    Original file (MD02-00703.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-00703 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020422, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. As I said before I made a foolish mistake and would like to go back through recruit training and prove to myself and to Marine Corps that (Applicant) does have what it takes to a United States Marine. The Applicant’s service record did not contain any unusual circumstances during his less than two months in the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00941

    Original file (MD03-00941.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. I also believe my discharge was in part due to several letters my mother had written to the Marine Corps as well as to the congressman of the state of Kentucky. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19891102 with an entry level separation (uncharacterized) by reason of convenience of...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-01176

    Original file (MD02-01176.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-01176 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020814, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. As a parent I am hoping P_ (Applicant) will return to the Marines by the time he leaves boot camp so maybe they can maybe over the next six years see ach other and have that special band Marines have with each other. Yes Marines I love him very much.

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-01087

    Original file (MD02-01087.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-01087 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020725, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. Assessment: History of PFS/ITBS, left knee.

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-01151

    Original file (MD02-01151.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-01151 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020805, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The factual basis for this recommendation was refusal to train. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 011203 with an entry level separation (uncharacterized) due to entry level performance and conduct (A).

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00680

    Original file (MD04-00680.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. My medical records will show that prior to enlistment my physical condition was prime and prior to discharge it was less than acceptable for Marine Corps standards, which is why I was discharged (because of service connected disabilities) I now receive 20% compensation.” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00412

    Original file (MD02-00412.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-00412 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020225, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to General/Under Honorable Conditions. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 (4 copies) Copy of DD Form 215 (2 copies) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01028

    Original file (MD04-01028.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requested the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to “DISABILITY.” The Applicant requests a documentary record review. Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20041022. The factual basis for this recommendation was the Applicant’s “numerous medical complaints and prolonged periods of light duty regarding his Pectus Carinatum, (the Applicant), was...