Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100135
Original file (MD1100135.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20101020
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)       20050209 - 20050821     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20050822     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20070307      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 16 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 57
MOS: 0621
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 :
- 20060105:      For Schizophrenia, which interferes with your duties, specifically, the inability to participate in rigorous exercises, conditioning hikes, and field duty.
- 20060614 :       For your diagnosis of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, as evidenced by the Mental Health Departmen t evaluation letter of 20060614.
- 20061130 :       For your diagnosis of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, as evidenced by the Mental Health Department evaluation letter of 20061130 .

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 the reason for his discharge (P ersonality D isorder ) was erroneous.

Decision

 Date: 20 1 201 19            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 consid e ration . T he Board complete d a thorough review of the circumstances that led to his discharge and the discharge process to ensure his discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service included three 6105 counseling retention warnings for an initial diagnosis of schizophrenia , followed by two subsequent obsessive - compulsive disorder (OCD) diagnoses . There was no evidence of commanding officer nonjudicial punishment (NJP) or trial by courts-martial. Based on the Applicant’s record of service, medical officer recommendations for administrative separation due to OCD , and future potential for service, the Applicant’s Commanding Officer processed him for administrative separation. When notified of a dministrative separation processing using the procedure on 6 Nov 2006 , the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel and submit a written statement . Prior to his discharge, the Applicant submitted a letter to his Commanding Officer , which stated: “ I know my condition and u nderstand how I am being medically discharged. I have been getting treated for about 7 months . I have had several complications with the meds I have used such as weight loss, constant fatigue, dizziness, loss of appetite , and more. I was recommended for separation when I was first diagnosed 7 months ago , but I decided to try to go through with treatment while in the Marines. I gave it a go and it did not work out . My doctor recommended that I get separated and go home to a relaxed environment where I can concentrate more on my recovery and I also see and feel that as being the best rout e as well . ” In his endorsement of the Applicant’s administrative separation package, the Applicant’s Commanding Officer stated : “(The Applicant) is being advised that this command is processing him for administrative separation due to a continuing diagnosed personality disorder, as evidenced by the Mental Health Department evaluation letters of 2006, and will not be able to perform under the A rmed F orces due to his mental condition. Due to SNM’s condition, it will not benefit the Corps because of his lack of energy and understanding (the Applicant) has for Marine Corps values. Being that SNM is suffering from a personality disorder , he has lost sight of our standards . ” The Applicant was separated from the Marine Corps on 7 Mar 2007 with an Honorable discharge due to Personality Disorder.
: (Decisional ) ( ) . The Applicant contends the reason for his discharge (P ersonality D isorder ) was erroneous. In a letter to the NDRB, the Applicant contends that side effects from medication he was taking while on active duty service caused him to be erroneously diagnosed with P ersonality D isorder and subsequently discharged from service. Additionally, he submitted a memorandum (dated 1 Jul 2010) from his current physician that stated that the Applicant had received psychotherapy treatment from Apr 2007 to Sep 2008 and no evidence of a personality disorder was identified. The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant ’ s discharge, will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted. However, 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 documentation and statement s provided by the Applicant and his mental health physician, in conjunction with the available records, p rovide d substantial, significant and credible evidence to overturn the presumption of regularity regarding his discharge for Personality Disorder. Mental health evaluations located within the Applicant’s in-service medical records and from post-service medical records (Veterans Administration) reveal that the Applicant ha d been consistently diagnosed with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) by competent health authorities since June 2006. Additionally, in a memorandum sent to the Applicant’s command on 23 Jun 2007, the Head Psychologist for Naval Hospital Camp Pendleton, CA stated that since the Applicant’s previous diagnosis with OCD and the subsequent medical officer recommendation for administrative separation

( dated 14 Jun 2006) , his symptoms have increased along with negative reactions from prescribed medications. The physician continued by stating the Applicant had a long-standing history of OCD that existed prior to service, but since there was no previous evaluation or treatment, it did not meet the criteria for an erroneous or fraudulent enlistment. Since the Applicant’s condition interfered with his ability to adequately serve in the Marine Corps, the physician emphasized the recommendation for administrative separation of the Applicant.

After considering all of the available evidence, to include the documentation submitted by the Applicant, the NDRB finds that the Narrative Reason for Separation (Personality Disorder) does not properly r eflect the Applicant ’ s specific mental health status at the time of his discharge, and therefore , was im proper at the time of issuance. Accordingly, the Board determined this issue merits relief on the basis of propriety. Relief warranted.

Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, and medical record entries , and the administrative separation process, the Board found the discharge was improper. Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall change to SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY . 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 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

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01862

    Original file (PD2012 01862.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board also noted that relative contribution to impairment from the CI’s OCD, PTSD, depression, and anxiety disorders diagnosed could not be separated, therefore the Board considered the mental health conditions together in its deliberations. The examiner also noted no suicidal thoughts. BOARD FINDINGS : IAW DoDI 6040.44, provisions of DoD or Military Department regulations or guidelines relied upon by the PEB will not be considered by the Board to the extent they were inconsistent with...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00052

    Original file (PD2012-00052.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After 5 years on the TDRL, the PEB adjudicated a permanent disability rating of 10% for the mental health condition with application of SECNAVINST 1850.4D and the Veteran’s Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). In the matter of the mental health condition, the Board, by a vote of 2:1, recommends a 50% disability rating upon entry on TDRL and a permanent disability rating of 10%, coded 9404 IAW VASRD §4.130. Service Treatment Record Exhibit C. Department of Veterans’ Affairs...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300629

    Original file (MD1300629.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Evidence of the record shows the Applicant received a complete medical evaluation on 16 May 2008. ” 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, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01449

    Original file (PD-2013-01449.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The psychiatric narrative summary (NARSUM) notes the CI developed mental health (MH) symptoms of anxiety and depression with obsessive thoughts and compulsive behaviors while deployed. At the MEB psychiatricexaminationon 5 January 2004(approximately 2 months prior to separation), the examiner noted, “While his [the CI] mood has improved and he seems less obsessive, he continues to complain of a general sense of anxiety and depression.” On mental status examination (MSE) the CI was noted to...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1102145

    Original file (MD1102145.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated 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/ToCongress member: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01062

    Original file (PD2012 01062.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The FPEB stated “Unfortunately, the Board cannot sustain the IPEB's recommendation for Temporary Retirement because if the member is working fulltime, not missing any work and performing his job rather well, he is certainly not 30 percent disabled. The CI requested mental health evaluation and treatment in July 1998. I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-01844

    Original file (PD-2012-01844.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The CI reported that he was still taking his medication and that he had no problems, at that time. RECOMMENDATION: The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no recharacterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination, as follows: UNFITTING CONDITION VASRD CODE RATING Obsessive Compulsive Disorder 9404 10% RATING 10% The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 294, dated 20121015, w/atchs Exhibit B. Service Treatment Record Exhibit C. Department...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000616

    Original file (ND1000616.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Representation: 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300450

    Original file (ND1300450.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, discharge process, and testimony, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall but the narrative reason for separation shall change to with a corresponding Separation Code change to JFF. ” Additional Reviews :...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301244

    Original file (ND1301244.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant was afforded the opportunity to rebut his administrative separation at the time of notification, but he waived his rights and accepted his command’s recommendation of an Honorable discharge for Personality Disorder.However, per MILPERSMAN Article 1910-122, “separation for personality disorder is not appropriate when separation is warranted for any other reason….” With the Applicant’s diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder and recommendation for separation, he met the requirements for...