Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200026
Original file (MD1200026.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20110930
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)       20090803 - 20100718     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20100719     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20100817      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r M on th 29 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 34
MOS: NONE
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): N/A / N/A    Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      NONE

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJP:     SCM:     SPCM:    CC:      Retention Warning Counseling :

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. 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 his recruiter told him not to report his history of blacking out to MEPS.
 2.       The Applicant contends he is healthy based on post-service medical test s .

Decision

Date: 20 1 2 1009            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 Board did complete 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 NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) retention counseling warnings, commanding officers’ nonjudicial punishments, or trial by courts-martial. On 5 August 2010 while at Marine Corps Recruit Depot , t he Applicant displayed seizure-like episodes. He was taken to Balboa Medical Center where he revealed he had a history of seizures. The Applicant’s civilian medical record was requested from his hometown hospital , Montrose Memorial, and a history of seizures was confirmed. On 10 August 2010 , the Applicant was recommended for Entry Level S eparation, Medical, and Fraudulent Entry discharge due to S eizure D isorder. Based on the fraudulent enlistment, 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 and submit a written statement .

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his recruiter told him not to report his history of blacking out to MEPS. 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 issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that the recruiter misled him through the recruitment process. The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case. However, even if the Applicant could show misrepresentations in the recruitment process, such misrepresentations would neither amount to a justification nor to a defense for the Applicant’s own misconduct. Neither the Applicant nor a recruiter determines if a p re-service event is pertinent. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he is healthy based on post-service medical test s . Unless significant, substantial, and credible information exists to rebut the medical authority’s findings that occurred at or about the time of the Applicant’s separation from service, the NDRB does not have jurisdictional authority to override medical authority diagnoses or findings that result in administrative separation. There is clear evidence in the record, as well as documents provided by the Applicant, that shows the Applicant had pre-service incident s of blacking out for which he was admitted to Montrose Memorial Hospital and S t . Mary’s Hospital for testing. T his information was not recorded or reported during the recruiting process by the Applicant . The NDRB found that the documentation and statements provided for review do not refute the presumption that the Applicant deliberately misrepresented his medical condition during the enlistment process, including the omission or concealment of facts which, if known at the time , would have reasonably been expected to preclude, postpone, or otherwise affect the Marine’s eligibility for enlistment or induction. No other narrative reason more clearly describes the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s processing for administrative separation. Furthermore, an Uncharacterized discharge is warranted when separation is initiated while a member is within the first 180 days of continuous active duty except when the characterization of service as Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) is authorized or Honorable is clearly warranted. The Applicant had no misconduct that would rate an UOTHC discharge, and there was no evidence of unusual circumstances involving personal conduct and performance that would merit an Honorable characterization. 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), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 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 | ND1101230

    Original file (ND1101230.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to:MEDICAL DISCHARGE Summary of ServicePrior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)20080114 - 20080414Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20080415Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20080515Highest Rank/Rate:SRLength of Service:Years Month01 DayEducation Level:AFQT: 35EvaluationMarks:Performance:NONEBehavior:NONEOTA: NONEAwards and Decorations (per DD...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901218

    Original file (ND0901218.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ), an uncharacterized separation shall be considered the equivalent of an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) characterization.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 However, based on the fact the condition was preexisting and discharge notification was made to the Applicant within the first 180 days of his enlistment, the awarded characterization of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900899

    Original file (ND0900899.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. ), an uncharacterized separation shall be considered the equivalent of an Honorable or General (under honorable conditions) characterization.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900225

    Original file (ND0900225.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Although the Applicant provided post-service medical documentation which was consistent with his pre-service medical evaluations, the Board finds it does not mitigate the diagnosis by the military cardiologist at the medical clinic in Great Lakes.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 Pertinent Regulation/Law A. ” Additional Reviews :...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1000490

    Original file (MD1000490.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’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 does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or other...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300139

    Original file (MD1300139.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, and discharge process, the Board found However, the Board found the narrative reason to be inappropriate. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500254

    Original file (MD1500254.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s record of service included an entry level administrative discharge from the Marine Corps for reason of a Fraudulent Entry into Military Service. 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 remain UNCHARACTERIZED and the narrative reason for separation shall remain FRAUDULENT ENTRY INTO MILITARY SERVICE....

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400033

    Original file (ND1400033.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 | 2009_Navy | ND0900956

    Original file (ND0900956.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Relief denied.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 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800002

    Original file (ND0800002.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP) 19961115 - 19970909 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19970910Period of enlistment: Years Months Date of Discharge:19980521Length of Service: Yrs Mths12DysEducation Level: Age at Enlistment:18AFQT: unreadableHighest Rank/Rate:RMSREvaluation marks:Performance: NA Behavior:NA OTA: NA Awards and Decorations (per DD 214): Types of Documents...