Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100982
Original file (MD1100982.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20110308
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)       20000630 - 20000723     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Current Enlistment: 20000724     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20021121      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea rs M on ths 28 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 42
MOS: 0341
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness Reports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle EX NDSM SS D R LOA

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJP: 1

- 20010419 :      Article 86 (Absence without leave, 20010402 - 20010405, 3 days)
         Article 121 (Larceny, stole wallet)
         Awarded: FOP CCU 21 days Suspended: FOP

SCM: NONE SPCM: NONE      CC: NONE          Retention Warning Counseling: NONE

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

 The NDRB note d an administrative error on the original DD Form 214:

          “ MARCORSEPMAN 6203.3 ”
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:                  Other Documentation:    
                  Additional Statements:
          From Applicant:           From/To Representation:           From/To Congress member:        


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.       The Applicant seeks an upgrade in order to reenlist in the military .
2.       The Applicant said h e was dealing with anxiety and depression and required medic ine that was not allowed in the Marines .
3 .       The Applicant contends his discharge was based on an isolated incident of unauthorized absence.
4.       The Applicant contends he does not have a personality disorder.
5.       The Applicant believes his post-service conduct is worthy of consideration.

Decision

Date: 20 1 2 0621            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 included one nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (Absence without leave, 20010402 - 20010405, 3 days) and Article 121 (Larceny, stole wallet) . On 11 July 2002, the Applicant was diagnosed by the Division Psych iatrist with a personality disorder of such severity as to interfere with his ability to function in a military environment. Based on the personality disorder diagnosis and recommendation for expeditious separation , his command administratively processed him for separation. When notified of a dministrative separation processing using the notification procedure, the Applicant waived his rights to consult with a qualified counsel and submit a written statement .

: (Non - decisional) The Applicant seeks an upgrade in order to reenlist in the military. The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. Furthermore, since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, it is not authorized to change a Reentry (RE) code. Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records can make changes to RE codes. Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable RE code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment. A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he was dealing with anxiety and depression a nd required medication that was not permitted in the military. When reviewing a discharge, the NDRB does consider the extent to which a medical problem might affect an Applicant’s performance and ability to conform to the military’s standards of conduct and discipline. However, the Board generally does not consider the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s stated condition, the implied incorrect diagnosis, or the medical treatment given to the Applicant to be of sufficient nature to exculpate or mitigate the misconduct . Although the Applicant was not discharged for his misconduct, it was not improper for his command to consider his misconduct when characterizing his service. The Applicant was discharge d due to personality disorder with a General discharge , which the Board found to be proper and equitable. Relief denied.

Issue 3: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge wa s based on an isolated incident of unauthorized absence. Despite a service member’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the Marine Corps to maintain proper order and discipline. Although a v iolation of Article 86 for less than 30 day is not considered a serious offense, violation of Article 121 is considered a serious offense. Larceny usually results in an unfavorable characterization of discharge or, at a maximum, a punitive discharge and possible confinement if adjudicated as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial. At NJP, t he Applicant was found guilty of violatin g Article s 86 and 121 . However, his command did not pursue a punitive discharge and chose not to administratively discharge him for commission of a serious offense, which c ould have resulted in an Under Other T han Honorable Conditions characterization. Instead, his command opted to discharge him for personality disorder , which the NDRB determined to be proper . The NDRB also determined that the characterization was equitable due to his misconduct . Relief denied.

Issue 4: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he does not have a personality disorder. The Applicant provided no documentation to support his claim. Documentation found in the Applicant’s service record reflects that he was diagnosed with a personality disorder on 11 July 2002 by a qualified medical officer. The evidence reviewed did not persuade the Board that this diagnosis and subsequent administrative separation were improper or inequitable. Relief denied.

Issue 5: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant suggests his post-service conduct, as evidenced by his steady employment record, college attendance , no major criminal involvement with law enforcement, and his support of his family, warrants consideration for upgrading his discharge. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re-characterization of a discharge. However, there is no law, or regulation, that 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. Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have been found to exist during the period of enlistment in question. Besides the Applicant’s statement on the DD Form 293, he failed to provide any documentary evidence on his behalf for post-service consideration. The Applicant could have provided documentation as detailed in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum with the recognition that completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post-service conduct establishes that the in-service misconduct was an aberration. Without post-service documentary evidence, the Board determined the awarded characterization of service shall remain General (Under Honorable Conditions).

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.

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 .


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

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100767

    Original file (MD1100767.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additionally, the Applicant submitted no documentation to warrant granting clemency. Clemency not 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 date of discharge.

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0902299

    Original file (MD0902299.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, based on the Applicant’s overall service record, the NDRB determined he did not warrant a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service and voted unanimously to upgrade his characterization to Honorable.Issue 2: (Decisional) (Equity) The NDRB did review this Issue, but since the NDRB granted full relief based on Issue 1, no further response is required.Summary: After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901035

    Original file (MD0901035.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. ” 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400102

    Original file (ND1400102.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 | 2008_Navy | ND0800127

    Original file (ND0800127.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Post Service Decision Date: 20080221Location: Washington D.C Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall PERSONALITY DISORDER.Discussion : either which the Board cannot form the basis of relief for the Applicant, or the Board does not have the authority to grant the relief for which the Applicant petitioned. Absent any documentation provided by the Applicant for the Board to consider, the Board determined that the Applicant’s...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800395

    Original file (MD0800395.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    From Representation: From Member of Congress: Other Documentation (Describe) DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. Record of service 3. By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall PERSONALITY DISORDER.Discussion : either which the Board cannot form the basis of relief for the Applicant, or the Board does not have the authority to grant the relief for which the Applicant petitioned.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700911

    Original file (ND0700911.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214 The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214: “ MILPERSMAN 1910-122 ” The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate. ” Additional Reviews :...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801335

    Original file (ND0801335.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. ” 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. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200305

    Original file (ND1200305.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901144

    Original file (ND0901144.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Pursuant to Naval Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN) 1910-122, members may be processed for separation based on a mental health professional's clinical diagnosis of a personality disorder when the disorder is so severe that one's ability to function effectively and perform their duties is significantly impaired, and/or the individual poses a threat to safety or well being of themselves or others.However, separation for personality disorder is not appropriate when separation is warranted...