Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100634
Original file (MD1100634.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20110105
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MARCORSEPMAN

Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to:
         Narrative Reason change to: ERRONEOUS ENLISTMENT

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive:         USMCR (DEP)       20080201 - 20080210     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Current Enlistment: 20080211     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20080229      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea rs M on ths 19 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 68
MOS: 8011
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): NONE         Fitness Reports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      NONE

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJP: NONE        SCM: NONE        S PCM: NONE       CC: NONE         Retention Warning Counseling: NONE

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:                  Other Documentation:    
                  Additional Statements:
         From Applicant:           From/To Representation:           From/To Congress member:        

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, MCO P1900.16F), effective 1 September 2001 until Present, paragraph 6204, DEFECTIVE ENLISTMENT AND INDUCTION.
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.       The Applicant contends a change in his narrative reason is warranted , because he did not withhold information from his recruiter or medical personnel about his medical history .
2.       The Applicant contends his medical diagnoses as a child by military medical personnel were over-diagnoses.
 3.       The Applicant provided a statement and documentation pertaining to his post-service activities.

Decision

 Date: 20 1 2 0223            Location: Washington D.C .         R epresentation : NONE

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’s record of service did not include any 6105 counseling warnings, non-judicial punishments, or trials by court-martial for violation s of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Documentation found in the Applicant’s service record indicates he was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Tourette ’ s Syndrome, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, and Anxiety Disorder, which existed prior to entering the service. His command admi nistratively processed him for separation due to fraudulent enlistment. The NDRB did not have the Applicant’s administrative separation package to determine whether the Applicant waived his rights to consult with a qualified counsel and submit a written statement . The Applicant was not entitled to an administrative board.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends a change in his narrative reason is warranted , because he did not withhold information from his recruiter or medical personnel about his medical history. He argues that the medical history forms did not address the topic of his childhood emotional issues, and the nurse practitioner at the MEPS was only concerned with his present and recent condition. The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs. The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his claim. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support his contention that he did not withhold information about his medical history. The Applicant’s belief that military medical personnel could have accessed his military dependent medical record was irrelevant , because it was his responsibility to accurately complete the DD 2807-1 (Report of Medical History) by fully disclos ing information pertaining to his medical history. As for his argument that the medical history forms did not address his issues, the DD 2807-1 specifically ask s, “Have you had any illness or injury other than those already noted . ” A p age o f the DD 2807 -1 was missing from the Applicant’s service record ; therefore, his response could not be confirmed. Th e Applicant had an o pportunity to provide any information regarding his medical history not specifically mentioned on the form. According to Marine Corps regulations, an enlistment, induction, or period of service is fraudulent when there has been deliberate material misrepresentation, including the omission or concealment of facts that, if known at the time, would have reasonably been expected to preclude, postpone, or otherwise affect the Marine ’ s eligibility for enlistment or induction. Although the Applicant might have believed that he was over-diagnosed and his problems did not exist, he had an obligation to report his medical history. The Board discerned no impropriety or inequity in the discharge process and d etermined that relief based on this issue is not warranted. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his medical diagnos e s as a child by military medical personnel w ere over-diagnos e s . The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs. The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his claim. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support his contention that he was over-diagnosed. His statement regarding being over diagnosed is not supported by substantial and credible documentary evidence. H is statement alone does not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case. The NDRB determined that relief based on this issue is not warranted. Relief denied.


: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant provided a statement and documentation pertaining to his post-service activities. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in changing the characterization of a discharge. However, it does not consider post-service conduct as justification to change the assigned Narrative Reason for Separation if it accurately describes why the Applicant was discharged from the Marine Corps. The NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the discharge process and determined that the assigned Narrative Reason for Separation does accurately describe why the Applicant was discharged. Therefore, a change in the Narrative Reason for Separation based on post-service conduct would be inappropriate. Relief denied.

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 . 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100568

    Original file (ND1100568.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)20090505 - 20100217Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20100218Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20100308Highest Rank/Rate: FNLength of Service: Years Months 21 DaysEducation Level:12AFQT: 85EvaluationMarks:Performance:NONEBehavior:NONEOTA: NONEAwards and Decorations (per DD 214):NONEPeriods of...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800801

    Original file (MD0800801.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He also admits seeing more than one psychiatrist concerning this condition and was diagnosed with depression, anxiety, and attention deficit disorder. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of discharge. Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board, and subsequently is processed for an administrative...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0902295

    Original file (MD0902295.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. The NDRB determined the Applicant was properly diagnosed with personality disorder, and the separation code was appropriate.NDRB Issue: (Decisional) () . ” 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 | 2009_Navy | ND0900630

    Original file (ND0900630.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Desires discharge characterization changed to “ Honorable ” .2. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301248

    Original file (ND1301248.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After an exhaustive review and giving thorough consideration to the post-service clinical psychologist letter and the in-service mental health evaluations, the NDRB determined PTSD and TBI did not mitigate the Applicant’s in-service misconduct.The NDRB also determined the requirements for a medical evaluation before administrative separation as mandated by 10 U.S.C. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900896

    Original file (ND0900896.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Applicant is seeking a change in his reentry (RE)code and characterization of service to get a better job.2. Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY.Discussion The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901553

    Original file (ND0901553.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall ERRONEOUS ENTRY (OTHER).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. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901411

    Original file (ND0901411.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ” 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. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100941

    Original file (MD1100941.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, the Applicant’s record of service and medical records document that appropriately credentialed mental health care providers diagnosed the Applicant with a severe Personality Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified (with Cluster B and Immature Features) and that he was recommended for an expeditious separation due to continued risk of harm to himself and to others.The Applicant’s service record and medical record document the identification, diagnosis, treatment, and eventual...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400129

    Original file (MD1400129.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Full relief to Honorable was not granted since the Applicant had served for less than 180 days, and the narrative reason for separation was not changed to Medical since the NDRB does not have that authority, and his diagnoses of Conversion and Adjustment Disorders should have resulted in a discharge for a Condition, Not a Disability. The Applicant, however, was not notified of this reason for separation, and so Secretarial Authority is the most appropriate reason for separation.Summary:...