Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00945
Original file (MD03-00945.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD03-00945

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030502. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. The Applicant designated the Veterans of Foreign Wars as the representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledgement letter the Applicant was informed that he was approaching the 15 year point for review by this Board and was encouraged to attend a personal appearance hearing in the Washington, D. C. area. Applicant did not respond.
 Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040401. 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 HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/CoG, Condition not a physical disability, Pseudofolliculitis Barbae (without administrative discharge board), MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6203.2.a (6).



PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1. “When discharge it was indicated that my educational benefits could be used, after year of trying, have been turn down, for I did not meet requirements. But I do (1) a physical condition which prevent satisfactory performance of duty, (2) Convenience of the government (JFV6) (3) payment in full into program (MGIB). (4) 24 Continuous months of active duty. RE Code RE-43 prevent continuing duty in service. Was force out because condition “made the unit look bad.”

Additional issues submitted by Applicant’s representative (Veterans of Foreign Wars):

 “2. Applicant indicated above requested that Veterans of Foreign Wars act as counsel concerning his application. His records were reviewed on Sep 17, 2003 and the following comments are hereby submitted:

We Concur with the Applicant’s contentions that his discharge should be upgraded.

We refer this case to the Board for their careful and compassionate consideration and request the Applicant's discharge be reviewed for upgrading his discharge to honorable. ”

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (2)
DD Form 149, dated February 12, 2003
Marine Corps Order 6310.1B W/CH 1, dated April 14, 1982
Montgomery GI Bill eligibility excerpt
Letter to Applicant from Board for Correction of Naval Records, dated April 15, 2003

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                851220 - 861208  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 861209               Date of Discharge: 890405

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 03 27
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 36

 Highest Rank: LCpl

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 4.4 (6)              Conduct: 4.4 (6)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/CoG, Condition not a physical disability, Pseudofolliculitis Barbae (without administrative discharge board), MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6203.2.a (6).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

870406:  Medical: A: Mild to moderate pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB). P: No shaving status/chit x 3 weeks – no shaving/then 29 April shave every 3 days for 5 weeks. Return May 26 for follow up. Hydrocortisone 1% cream apply to affected area.
870526:  Medical: Follow up: A: Resolving PFB. P: Cort cream apply to affected area. Continue home treatment and return as needed.
871014:  Medical: Swollen face possible due to shaving. Referred to PFB clinic.

 871023:  Medical: FCAC: A: Mild to moderate PFB. P: PFB program began this date.
880713:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:
 Specification: Fail to go at the time prescribed for Booker Rights class at 0700, 880607.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 112A:
Specification: Wrongfully use marijuana between 880602 and 880617.
Awarded forfeiture of $350.00 per month for 2 months, reduction to PFC. Forfeiture suspended for 6 months. Not appealed.
880719:  Counseled concerning assignment to LV-I, 2 x 4 program. Assigned to the Unit LV-1 substance abuse and awareness workshop for the month of August 1988 and also assigned to the unit 2x4 program. Disciplinary warning issued.
880913:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. [Revocation of driving privileges/assignment of ADETS class. I understand that because of my being convicted of a positive urine test on 880714 at CLNC I have lost all base driving privileges for one year starting on 880621. I have also been assigned to attend alcohol and drug education traffic school beginning on 880926 to 880929.] Disciplinary warning issued.

881014:  Medical FCAC, CLNC: A: PFB (mild). P: Pt advised, states he wants out of USMC because he can’t shave. No shave chit with admin sep recommendation.

881227:  Counseled concerning my administrative separation from the Marine Corps for unsuitability, as I cannot shave properly due to pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB).
890202:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for honorable discharge by reason of convenience of the government for a condition not a physical disability - pseudofolliculitis barbae. Applicant informed the lowest characterization possible was under honorable conditions (general).
890202:  Applicant advised of rights and having elected to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

890202:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of convenience of the government for a condition not a physical disability - pseudofolliculitis barbae. The factual basis for this recommendation was your diagnosed physical condition not a disability (pseudofolliculitis barbae).

890321:  SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

890321:  GCMCA [Commanding General, 2d Force Service Support Group, Fleet Marine Force, Atlantic] directed the Applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of convenience of the government due to a condition not a physical disability - pseudofolliculitis barbae.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19890405 under honorable conditions (general) by reason of convenience of the government due to condition not a physical disability - pseudofolliculitis barbae (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).

Issues 1 and 2. A characterization of service of under honorable conditions (general) 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. T he Applicant’s service was marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on one occasion and adverse counseling entries on other occasions. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service. An upgrade to honorable is inappropriate. Relief denied.

 The Veterans Administration 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.

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 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.













Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, ( MCO P1900.16C, Change 1), effective 830406 until 890626, 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 | 2002_Marine | MD02-00736

    Original file (MD02-00736.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-00736 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020424, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Possible medical board. 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 Applicant, through counsel, contends that racial prejudice by his command

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00717

    Original file (MD04-00717.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD04-00717 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040325. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. _______________________________________________________________________ In accordance with 32 C.F.R., section 724.166 and SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 1.16, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the above issue and following...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07971-06

    Original file (07971-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10of the United States Code, section 1552.A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 January 2007. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application,together withall material submitted in support thereof,your navalrecordand applicable statutes,regulations andpolicies. ...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00996

    Original file (MD01-00996.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD01-00996 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010730, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Women of Concern Award of Excellence dtd 3 Jun 2001Information concerning the Women of Concern in the State of Tennessee (2 pages) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000299

    Original file (20130000299.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that he be granted an additional 10 percent disability rating for his shaving profile. On 10 December 1986, the ABCMR denied the applicant's request. _______ _ _X______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00045

    Original file (MD04-00045.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Awarded forfeiture of 450.00 for 2 mos, red to E-1, restriction and epd for 45 days. 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00201

    Original file (MD04-00201.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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: By regulation, members who are processed for 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. When the command suspects a...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00147

    Original file (PD2011-00147.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    The aforementioned conditions were included in my VA Disability claim and the VA determined and awarded the following within 12 months of separation: - Asthma was Service Connected Disability with 30% Rating; - Lower Back was Service Connected Disability with 10% Rating; - Hypertension was Service Connected Disability with 0% Rating; & - Pseudofolliculitis barbae was Service Connected Disability with 0% Rating. After careful consideration of your application and treatment records, the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130002939

    Original file (20130002939.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his records to: * show he was medically retired instead of honorably discharged with entitlement to severance pay * award him a 10 percent (%) service-connected disability for left knee pain * award him a 10% service-connected disability for right knee pain * award him a 30% service-connected disability for adjustment disorder with anxiety 2. He provided VA rating decision, dated 2 July 2012, which shows the VA awarded him a service-connected...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00549

    Original file (ND02-00549.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Disposition: Service member is strongly recommended for administrative separation on the basis of documented personality disorder, sleepwalking disorder and pes planus, and much more so with his suicidal behavior. Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim): It has been recommended that the Respondent, SA (Applicant), be separated from the Naval Service by reason of convenience of the government - personality disorder and misconduct - commission of a serious offense - malingering and that the...