Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1000339
Original file (MD1000339.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20091113
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)       20050623 - 20050711     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20050712     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 2006 1024      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 13 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 34
MOS: 0341
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness R eports:
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle

Periods of UA / CONF :     NJP:     SCM:     SPCM:    CC:

Retention Warning Counseling :

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

          Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, should read: “ RIFLE MARKSMAN BADGE, GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM SERVICE MEDAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL ”

The NDRB will recommend to the Commandant of the Marine Corps that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.
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:                  Oth er Documentation:    
                  Additional Statements :
         From Applicant:            From /To Representation:            From /To Congress m ember :        

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 .       Applicant contends he did not have a personality disorder , which was stated as the basis for his discharge.

Decision


 Date: 20 1 1 0107            Location: Washington D.C .         R epresentation :

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 g overnment al a ffairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. The Applicant identif ied one decisional issue for the Board’s consideration. T he Board complete d a thorough review of the circumstances that led to discharge and the discharge process to ensure discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service did not contain any negative 6105 counseling retention warnings, UCMJ Article 15 commanding officer’s nonjudicial punishment s , or record s of trial by court-martial. The records did reflect that the Applicant received a medical evaluation during recruit training, in July 2005, in which he admitted to a pre-enlistment medical diagnosis and treatment he received for mental health issues resulting from him cutting his forearm with a broken bottle in high school. The Applicant had been hospitalized for one week at the time , treated for substance abuse, and placed on the drug Prozac. The Recruit Training Regiment mental health physician diagnosed the Applicant under Axis I with Depressive Disorder (not otherwise specified), stated the Applicant’s previous mental health issues (due to developmental issues) had resolved , and that he was fit for duty/continued training. Seven months later, the Applicant was referred to the battalion aid station at 29 Palms, CA for evaluation due to symptoms of heat injury. The physician diagnosed him with heat exhaustion and anxiety and scheduled him for a follow-up exam with a mental health provider based on statements made to the physician and previous statements the Applicant had made to members within his command. The medical report noted the Applicant admitted to having suicidal thoughts for years and that he had attempted a drug overdose prior to enlisting in the Marine Corps. He also stated he had been raped at the age of 10 and had lost two children in utero, but the record provides no further information or detail. After a psychiatric evaluation, the 29 Palms Naval Hospital Mental Health Department (MHD) diagnosed the Applicant as: Axis I, Poly-substance abuse by history Probable Dysthymic Disorder; Axis II, Borderline Personality Disorder -severe ; Axis III, None known. Based on these findings, on 6 Feb 2006 the MHD recommended expeditious separation of the Applicant stating “the Applicant manifests a long-standing disorder of character and behavior, which is of such severity as to render the individual incapable of serving adequately in the USMC. The member does not require and will not benefit from hospitalization or psychiatric treatment. The member is judged to represent an imminent danger to self and others if retained in the USMC. The member is deemed fit to return to duty for immediate processing for administrative separation, which should be initiated expeditio usly by their command in compli ance with MARCORSEPMAN 6203.3 wit hout need of 6105 counseling … . ”

Based on the MHD recommendation for separation and official letters of recommendation from his Platoon Sergeant, Company First Sergeant, Platoon Commander, and Company Commander , the Applicant ’s command administratively processed for separation. When notified of a dministrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review.

The Applicant provided documentation that included: a Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Decision Letter (dated 10 Jun 2009) and numerous DVA medical and correspondence letters relating to the Applicant’s claims request process.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he did not have a personality disorder , which was stated as the basis for his discharge. T he 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 B oard for Correction of Naval Records can grant this type of narrative reason change. Nevertheless, t he Board conducted an exhaustive review of the available medical and service records documentation to determine if the Applicant’s discharge was proper and in compliance with the applicable orders and directives in effect at the time of his discharge. The records clearly reflect that the Applicant had a significant history of mental health issues prior to his enlistment , which included chronic suicide ideations , depression, psychiatric hospitalization (one week), illicit drug use (marijuana), drug treatment (Prozac), and self-mutilation (cutting forearm with broken glass), which was partially discovered during medical evaluation during recruit training. This history was not fully disclosed by the Applicant during his enlistment processing, and if disclosed, would have likely barred him from enlistment into military service. Normally in these situations , a service member would be processed for administrative separation under “ Fraudulent Enlistment . ” Nevertheless, the physician felt at the time that though the Applicant had a depressive disorder (not otherwise specified), the Applicant’s previous issues seemed to have been resolved , and he was highly motivated to continue recruit training , so he recommended the same to the R ecruit Training Regiment chain of command . Seven months later, the Applicant was again evaluated by medical personnel at his fleet command, located at 29 Palms CA , and was diagnosed with A xis I, Poly-substance abuse by history Probable Dysthymic Disorder; Axis II, Borderline Personality Disorder-severe; Axis III, None known , and subsequently administratively separated with an Honorable discharge .

I n 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 claims that he did not have a personality disorder at the time of discharge and that he would submit records from his personal doctor in support of his claim. After reviewing all the available documents of record, to include those submitted by the Applicant, the Board could not find any evidence to support the Applicant’s claim. The record clearly reflects the Applicant’s long history of mental health issues that existed prior to enlistment and the official diagnosis of his mental health status from competent mental health physicians while in the Marine Corps . Therefore, the Board determined this issue to be without merit and did not provide a basis for which relief could be granted.

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 PERSONALITY DISORDER .
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, specifically the paragraphs titled Additional Reviews, Automatic Upgrades, and Post-Service Conduct .


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 Disable d 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), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100 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

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100804

    Original file (ND1100804.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Patient is recommended for administrative separation due to Schizoid Personality Disorder … . ” Based on the medical diagnosis and recommendations from the Mental Health physicians, the Applicant’s command administratively processed him for separation. ” 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00561

    Original file (MD04-00561.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The boards decision to upgrade my discharge will help me in getting the opportunity to do just that.Regards,A_D_ (Applicant)” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USMCR(J) 000906 - 001010 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 001011 Date of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001697

    Original file (ND1001697.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board noted the Applicant’s service records were incomplete, however, the Board conducted a thorough review of the available records to determine whether discharge and the discharge process met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. ” 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. Additionally,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001994

    Original file (ND1001994.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Relief warranted.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries and the administrative separation process, the Board found the discharge was proper but not equitable at the time of discharge. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101178

    Original file (ND1101178.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)19941031 - 19951011Active:USNR (DEP)19951013 - 19960103 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 19960104Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:19970505Highest Rank/Rate:SALength of Service:Years Months02 DaysEducation Level:AFQT: 45EvaluationMarks:Performance:3.0(1)Behavior:1.0(1)OTA: 2.67Awards and Decorations...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101284

    Original file (ND1101284.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Applicant seeks a discharge upgrade to obtain veteran medical benefits and does not understand why he was denied mental health services if he was discharged for depression. The Applicant was not entitled to an administrative separation board.The Applicant was separated from the Navy on 3 March 2000 with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge due to Personality...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001808

    Original file (ND1001808.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant states personal stressors caused him to lie about having suicidal thoughts that led to his discharge.The Board conducted an exhaustive review of the records and found no evidence to support, nor did the Applicant provide any evidence to indicate, he attempted to use the numerous services available for service members who undergo personal problems during their enlistment such as the Navy Chaplain or Medical or Mental Health professionals.The NDRB recognizes that serving in the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600846

    Original file (ND0600846.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Applicant Issues, The Applicant is requesting anarrative reason change, so that he may request a RE-code change to reenlist into the armed forces.The Applicant claims his previous, in service, diagnosis for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is incorrect based on a post service Mental health Consult/Diagnostic interview from the Veterans Administration Clinic. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101299

    Original file (ND1101299.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s service records contain the 25 July 1997 administrative separation notification form that states the Applicant was being processed for administrative separation from the Navy on the basis of personality disorder (as evidenced by mental health evaluation of 14 July 1997). Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, and medical record entries, documentation submitted by the Applicant,and the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600747

    Original file (MD0600747.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY ex-Pvt, USMC Docket No. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). Finding: Guilty Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 107: Specification: False official statement.