Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00404
Original file (MD03-00404.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD03-00404

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030109. The Applicant requests the reason for discharge received at time of discharge be changed to “annulate -(suicidal ideations) ELPAC From Discharge.” The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20031121. 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/ENTRY LEVEL PERFORMANCE AND CONDUCT, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6205.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1. “Annualize – (suicidal Ideations) ELPAC from Discharge

 My name is R_ O_ (Applicant) and I am a twenty five-years old community college student attending Cabrillo College in Aptos, California. The porpoise of this letter is to ask you (the Board) to consider in changing my reason of my discharge from the United States Marine Corps in 1998. For the last two year I have try to reenlist in to the Marine Corps, but twice I have been rejected because of my reenlistment code (“RE-3F” / Failure to complete recruit training.) and the reason that I was discharge. After passing the ASVBA test with a high score, also passing my physical exam, and the police background check I was told that do to a report that suggest that I was recommended for ELS due to a failure to adapt (Suicidal Ideations) or ELPAC.

I believe that there has being a misunderstanding to my discharge, during my time at Marine Corps Recruit Depot in San Diego California I was highly motivated and I was at the top ten recruits in my platoon. I was the scribe to my platoon, I help other recruits with their personal issues by motivating them not to give up and continue with their training, and most of the recruits in my platoon trusted me and ask me for help and advice. I really felt a sense of brotherhood and that made me feel part of the Marine Corps. At that point I did not had any problems with any if my Drill Instructors or any recruit. But unfortunately something happen that change that productive path. I started to have some difficult time and my motivation started to collapse and at the same time I was taking some medication that made feel tired, and I couldn’t sleep and rest. All that started to accumulate and begin to take away my motivation to continue; because of my lack of sleep I was falling at sleep during classes and that got me in to trouble with my Drill Instructors. I felt angry and unhappy with my self that I became depress. I was sent to see a chaplain and the chaplain subjected to see a psychologist for an evaluation. At the first visit with the psychologist (a civilian) she diagnose me with depression and the psychologist told me that she would see how she can possibly send me home. She asks me a lot of question for about an hour and some of the question that I believe now I did not understood well was one regarding suicide. When she was asking questions I was tire and sleep and I try to focus and show as much attention as I can. When the psychologist ask me a question about suicide, what I heard was if I ever though of committing suicide I responded “yes” when I was about 14 years old but it was only a thought and not an action. I did not know that answering yes to this question would put in a category that will damage my image as a person. I was very young and immature when I though about committing suicide. Now I have matured and I see my life in much positive way and that’s why I join the Marine Corps in the first place. I saw my self doing something good for my self, my family and my country.

I do regret all of the negative events that happen at Marine Corp Recruit Depot San Diego that made a negative image of me with the United States Marine Corps. All that happen within a couple of days, I believe it was five days. Now I want to clean my honor and my image as a citizen of the United States. That is why I am asking the board to give me the opportunity by upgrading my discharge and changing my re-enlistment code or make possible for me to re-enlist in to the United States Marine Corps. Now I am in a good physical condition, I have a great education goal, also very important I am much mature, and I am highly mentally capable of accomplishing my goals. One of these goals is to be a Marine but not any Marine a United States Marine. I cannot say how much I will be grateful to the board for the opportunity that will change my life, joining the United States Marine Corps will take me in to a great journey that can only happen in one lifetime.

Thank you for taking you valuable time to read this request.

Once again thank you.

Sincerely;

 R_ O_ ”

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214
Letter of recommendation from a co-worker, dated August 29, 2002
Letter of recommendation from a teacher, dated October 2, 2002
Letter of recommendation from Head Teacher, dated July 6, 2002
Character reference, dated September 24, 2002
Character reference, dated October 16, 2002
Police record check, dated November 22, 2002

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                980929 - 981101  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 981102               Date of Discharge: 981204

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 01 03
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 21                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 35

 Highest Rank: PFC

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: None                          Conduct: None

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

UNCHARACTERIZED/ENTRY LEVEL PERFORMANCE AND CONDUCT, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6205.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

981123:  Medical evaluation by Mental Health Unit recommends entry level separation nonadapt.
981130:  Commanding Officer recommended entry level separation by reason of entry level performance/conduct. The factual basis for this recommendation was due to the failure to adapt to the USMC environment.

981201:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. [Inability to adapt to military environment.] Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.
981201:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for entry level discharge (uncharacterized) by reason of entry level performance and conduct.
981201:  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.

981203:  GCMCA [Commanding General, Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego, CA] directed the Applicant's uncharacterized (entry level) discharge by reason of entry level performance and conduct.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19981204 with an entry level separation (uncharacterized) due to entry level performance and conduct (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. There is credible evidence in the record that the Applicant failed to adapt to the military environment present at MCRD, San Diego, CA. No other narrative reason more clearly describes the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s processing for administrative separation. The record is devoid of evidence that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. Relief denied.
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.

The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country. Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such error or inequity occurred 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. However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review. Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the Applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than Honorable discharge. Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle, are examples of verifiable documentation that may be provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct. The Applicant’s evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate the reason for which he was discharged. 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. The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E, effective 950818), paragraph 6205, ENTRY LEVEL PERFORMANCE AND CONDUCT .

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 | MD03-01423

    Original file (MD03-01423.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-01423 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030827. They know what the discharge board needs to see to ensure a discharge the first time through. His records were reviewed on December 12, 2003 and the following comments are hereby submitted:The Applicant was discharge from the Marine Corps on June 6, 1994 from Boot Camp after Approximately two and one half months with an Uncharacterized Discharge because he the Marine Corps said that he fail to...

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-01060

    Original file (MD99-01060.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 (2 copies) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USMCR(J) 960927 - 961118 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 961119 Date of Discharge: 970121 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 00 02 03 Inactive: None Applicant acknowledged that he...

  • 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 | 2002_Marine | MD02-00219

    Original file (MD02-00219.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-00219 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020108, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. AXIS II: Personality disorder NOS, with narcissistic and antisocial features.010410: Counseled concerning his ELS due to entry level performance and conduct. SNR discharged from Navy for psychological reasons.

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600247

    Original file (MD0600247.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). MHU diagnosed SNR with Generalized Anxiety Disorder (EPTE). Based on the Applicant’s issue, namely that he “made up stories” in order to be discharged, the Board reviewed the Applicant’s record to determine whether the Applicant’s narrative reason for separation should be changed.

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-01310

    Original file (MD02-01310.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-01310A Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20020909. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to medical – entry level separation. “On behalf of the above referenced applicant, and in accordance with 32 C.F.R., section 724.166; SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 1.16, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00706

    Original file (MD02-00706.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-00706 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020415, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service. The Applicant’s service record did not contain any unusual circumstances during...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600432

    Original file (MD0600432.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant understands that the separation authority may disapprove his request for a general discharge and award him an other than honorable characterization of service.020223: Medical Division, NAVCONBRIG MIRAMAR, San Diego, CA confinement evaluation.020225: Counseling: Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (Conviction at a summary court martial held on 020222, at Spt Bn, RTR, MCRD San Diego, CA), and advised being processed for administrative discharge action.Applicant chose...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00544

    Original file (MD04-00544.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requested the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The doctor I saw at Parris Island, Dr. B_, recommended that I be granted an entry level separation. 010209: GCMCA [Commanding General, Marine Corps Recruit Depot/Eastern Recruiting Region] directed the Applicant's discharge with an uncharacterized (entry level) by reason entry-level performance and conduct.

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00128

    Original file (MD01-00128.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 990723 with an entry level separation (uncharacterized) for convenience of the government due to a personality disorder (A and 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 (D and E).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board informs the applicant that “failure to...