Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201596
Original file (MD1201596.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20120717
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 - 20091115     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20091116     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years M onth
Date of Discharge: 20120126      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea rs M on ths 11 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 79
MOS: 0311/8152
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle Pistol MM

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. Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 1 September 2001 and Present, paragraph 6203, CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT .
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 discharge was improper and inequitable , because he had no adverse actions in his record and he made a “reasonable” refusal to undergo a medical procedure .

Decision

Date: 20 1 3 0509            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 sta ndards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service included no 6105 counseling warnings and no misconduct resulting in non-judicial punishment or court-martial. On 19 July 20 11 , the Applicant was diagnosed with a closed dislocation of his acromioclavicular joint left as a result of an injury sustained in a skateboard accident. Physical therapy and other treatments were unsuccessful , so the Applicant was offered elective reconstructive surgery. The Applicant refused to undergo the surgery , and o n 27 September 2011 , an orthopedic provider at Naval Medical Center Portsmouth found the Applicant fit for full duty but recommended him for administrative 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 .

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge was improper and inequitable , because he had no adverse actions in his record , and he made a “reasonable” refusal to undergo a medical procedure. Pursuant to Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, effective 1 September 2001, paragraph 6203, a Marine may be separated for refusing medical treatment and that refusal interferes with duty. The commander must determine if the refusal is “reasonable” or “unreasonable” and warrants separation based upon the results of a medical evaluation board and the determination of the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) . The PEB will make a determination of “reasonable” or “unreasonable” refusal of medical treatment according to SECNAVINST 1850.4D, paragraph 3413. A medical evaluation board and PEB action are necessary because a determination of unreasonable refusal and intentional misconduct/willful neglect will result in denial of Department of Veterans Affairs and Social Security Administrati on medical treatment for the member in the future. A thorough review of the Applicant’s service and medical records indicate he did not receive a medical evaluation or PEB due to his surgery being considered elective. On 27 September 2011 , an orthopedic provider at Naval Medical Center Portsmouth found the Applicant fit for full duty and recommended him for administrative separation due to the Applicant being unable to perform his duties with his current injury . In the Force Surgeon, II Marine Expedition ary Force letter dated 23 December 2011, the ort hopedic provider stated that he anticipated the Applicant returning to full duty with the surgery, but it was the Applicant’s decision to make and he could reasonably refuse it . The NDRB determined that since the Applicant was not given a PEB to determine if his decision was “reasonable ” or “unreasonable , ” but instead was discharge d on the basis of the Convenience of the Government - Condition Not a Disability, his discharge was inequitable. Per regulaion, characterization of service for separation due to a Condition, Not a Disability should be Honorable unless a General is warranted. During the Applicant’s t wo years and two months of service, he did not have any misconduct or other significant negative aspects of service that warranted a General discharge. Therefore, t he NDRB determined an upgrade to Honorable was warranted. Relief 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 but the narrative reason shall remain CONDITION NOT A DISABILITY . The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for 15 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

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300116

    Original file (MD1300116.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A change to the narrative reason for separation is not warranted, because refusal of medical treatment is grounds for discharge for a Condition, Not a Disability.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 but the narrative reason for separation shall remain .The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00201

    Original file (MD04-00201.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).Issue 1: By regulation, members who are processed for discharged within the first 180 days of enlistment are given characterization of service as “uncharacterized” unless there were unusual circumstances regarding performance or conduct, which would merit an “honorable” characterization. When the command suspects a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0701040

    Original file (ND0701040.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change: Applicant’s Issues:1. 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 Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP) 20010831 - 20020415 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20020416Years Contracted:4; Extension: 24 monthsDate of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101369

    Original file (ND1101369.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks an upgrade to further his service in the National Guard.2. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001835

    Original file (ND1001835.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 the administrative separation 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,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1002107

    Original file (MD1002107.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues Decisional issues:The Applicant and her counsel contend the following issues resulted in an improper discharge and an inequitable discharge characterization of service: (1) the Applicant should have been medically discharged with disability; (2) the Applicant’s new chain of command refused medical care and broke all contact with the medical staff; (3) the chain of command...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03240-01

    Original file (03240-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 December 2001. 6100/4, in The Board found that on 9 January 1998, you completed a NAVMED Form which you acknowledged that you had been counseled concerning the effects of your refusal to undergo surgery to correct your torn medial meniscus, to include the possibility of discharge from the naval service without entitlement to disability benefits administered by...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101645

    Original file (MD1101645.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 | PD2012-00883

    Original file (PD2012-00883.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB adjudicated the moderate bunion deformity, left foot, operated as unfitting, rated 10%, with application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD. The VA examination documented a normal gait and that the CI did not require the use of special shoes. RECOMMENDATION: The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no recharacterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination, as follows: UNFITTING CONDITION Moderate Bunion Deformity, L Foot...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00751

    Original file (ND03-00751.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 Southeastern Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Inc. letter, dated January 24, 2003 Job/character reference, dated August 5, 2002 Letter from State of Connecticut, Department of Veterans Affairs, dated January 30,...