Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400445
Original file (MD1400445.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20140107
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MARCORSEPMAN

Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to:
         Narrative Reason change to: MEDICAL DISCHARGE/MEDICAL RETIREMENT
        
Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:         USMCR (DEP)       20030807 - 20040216     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20040217     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20051215      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 15 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 42
MOS: 0311
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): /    Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):      Rifle

Period of CONF :

NJP:

- 20050107 :       Article (Absence without leave , 0700, 20041217 until 1930, 20050102, 15 days)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- Details of second NJP not found in service record [Extracted from medical records dated 20051115 , “the patient was on restriction for UA and disobeying orders ”]

 SCM:     SPCM:    CC:

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20050817 :       For personality disorder

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 :        


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.       The Applicant contends he was not properly evaluated after his return from Iraq and prior to discharge.
2 .       The Applicant contends he had an extreme anger problem 2-3 months after sustaining a head injury that resulted in a concussion and his command never addressed this issue. Further, the division psychiatrist diagnosed this as an Adjustment Disorder with Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (NOS) after only a 30-60 minute evaluation.
3 .       The Applicant contends no command or medical interventions were made for the responses on his Post-Deployment Health Assessments, and several visits to Medical resulted in no treatment and dismissive responses from his leadership.
 4.       The Applicant contends the Miami Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) found no pre-existing Personality Disorder upon his entry into the Marine Corps.
 5.       The Applicant contends the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) diagnosed him post service with combat-related Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder ( PTSD ) and Traumatic Brain Injury ( TBI ) and stated that he had not been diagnosed with a Personality Disorder while at the VA.

Decision

Date: 20140501            Location: Washington D.C .         R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .
Discussion

 As a result of the Applicant’s claim of PTSD and TBI, in accordance with U.S. Code, Title X, Section 1553 (d)(1), the Naval Discharge Review Board included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist. In accordance with section 1553 (d)(2), the service secretary expedited a final decision and accorded the case sufficient priority to achieve an expedited resolution. The Applicant’s service record documents completion of a deployment in the Al-Anbar Province of Iraq from January to August 200 5 , conducting combat operations in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM.

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 6105 counseling warning and for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (Absence without leave , 0700, 20041217 until 1930, 20050102, 15 days). The details of the second NJP were not found in the service record , however, a reference to it was e xtracted from a Division Psychologist letter dated 15 November 20 0 5. Based on the Applicant ’s diagnosis of Personality Disorder , command administratively processed for separation. When notified of a dministrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant rights to consult with a qualified counsel and submit a written statement .

Issues 1-3: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he was not properly evaluated after his return from Iraq and prior to discharge. He also contends he had an extreme anger problem 2-3 months after sustaining a head injury that resulted in a concussion and his command never addressed this issue. Further, the division psychiatrist diagnosed this as an Adjustment Disorder with Personality Disorder NOS after only a 30-60 minute evaluation. Finally, the Applicant contends no command or medical interventions were made for the responses on his Post-Deployment Health Assessments, and several visits to Medical resulted in no treatment and dismissive responses from his leadership. The documents provided by the Applicant show that he was seen by Division Psychiatry on 3, 4, 5, and 6 January 2005, and he was diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder and an Axis II diagnosis (i.e., Personality Disorder diagnosis) was deferred. On 6 January 2005, the Applicant was found psychologically fit for duty. The Applicant then deployed to Iraq from January to August 2005. On 17 August 2005, the Applicant received a retention warning for a diagnosis of a Personality Disorder. On 11 October 2005, the Applicant completed his Post-Deployment Health Assessment. The record shows the Applicant was seen by Division Psychiatry on 08 November 2005 for suicidal thoughts. On 15 November 2005, the Division Psychiatrist recommended the Applicant be administratively separated and stated the Applicant was a danger to self, but contracted for

safety, did not require one-on-one escort, and was responsible for his own actions. On 17 November 2005, the 2d Marine Division psychiatrist confirmed the diagnos is of P ersonality Disorder (NOS) with Immature and Borderline Features . The Applicant was d ischarged on 15 December 2005.

Pursuant to Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual (MARCORSEPMAN) paragraph 6203.3, members may be processed for separation based on a mental health professional’s clinical diagnosis of a P ersonality D isorder when the disorder is so severe that one’s ability to function effectively and perform their duties is significantly impaired, and the individual poses a threat to safety or well being of themselves or others. On 17 November 2005, the Division Psychiatrist, 2d Marine Division confirmed the diagnosis of a Personality Disorder (NOS) with Immature and Borderline Features. After a complete review of the service and medical records and the post-service VA medical documentation, the NDRB determined his discharge for Personality Disorder was proper. T he NDRB also determined that the evidence in the record does not support the contention s that the command failed to follow up with his mental status and failed to treat him or take his issues seriously . On the contrary, the records show the Applicant was unsuitable for further Naval Service and his command acted properly in separating the Applicant for a P ersonality D isorder. Relief denied.

Issue 4: (Decisional) (Propriety/Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant contends the Miami MEPS found no pre-existing Personality Disorder upon his entry into the Marine Corps. Processing of personnel at MEPS for military service does not involve detailed psychological testing or assessments, particularly for the presence of a Personality Disorder. During military service, if a service member has a Personality Disorder (which develops during the teen years) where the disorder is so severe that one’s ability to function effectively and perform their duties is significantly impaired, and the individual poses a threat to safety or well being of themselves or others , members may be processed for separation based on a mental health professional’s clinical diagnosis of a P ersonality D isorder . Competent medical authority diagnosed the Applicant with a Personality Disorder (NOS) with Immature and Borderline Features while in service and recommended separation due to his inability to function effectively and perform his duties. Relief denied.

Issue 5 : (Decisional) (Propriety/Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant contends the VA diagnosed him post service with combat-related PTSD and TBI and stated that he had not been diagnosed with a Personality Disorder while at the VA. According to documentation submitted by the Applicant, the VA diagnosed the Applicant with TBI and combat-related PTSD in 2012, and he completed extensive, inpatient treatment programs for PTSD in 2012 and 2013. The Applicant also submitted a VA letter dated 04 December 2013 written by a staff psychiatrist that states the Applicant has not been diagnosed with a Personality Disorder, did not have such a diagnosis during his first inpatient treatment in 2012, and has not had a Personality Disorder diagnosis by his outpatient mental health treatment coordinator. The Applicant ’s first instance of misconduct (15-day UA) occurred after his TBI incident but before his deployment to Iraq. Although details were not in his record, his second instance of misconduct appears to have been late in 2005 after his return from Iraq. Though the Applicant may feel that PTSD and TBI were the underlying cause of his misconduct, the evidence of record did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. O n 15 November 2005, the Division Psych iatrist confirmed the Personality Disorder and determined the Applicant was in fact responsible for his own actions. In addition, the medical record dated 15 November 2005 states that the Applicant had been suicidal “since [he] came into the Marine Corps . ” A General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge is warranted when the quality of the member’s service has been honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s service record. A fter an exhaustive review, to include the in-service and VA medical documentation, the NDRB determined PTSD and TBI d id not mitigate the Applicant’s misconduct , and his General discharge for Personality Disorder was proper and equitable . 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.

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), 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 | 2012_Marine | MD1200527

    Original file (MD1200527.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 2 Jun 2006, the Applicant’s Regimental Commander endorsed his administrative separation package and on 9 June 2006, the Separation Authority directed that the Applicant be discharged with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge due to Personality Disorder. Relief warranted.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 the Therefore, the awarded...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201085

    Original file (MD1201085.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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1401148

    Original file (MD1401148.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no indication in the evidence of record or in the documentation submitted by the Applicant that the Applicant was recommended for or processed for a medical board by proper authority. ” 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801909

    Original file (MD0801909.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    While PTSD may be a contributing factor for the Applicant’s alcohol dependence, the record does not reflect the Applicant was not responsible for his actions or should not be accountable for his misconduct due to PTSD or TBI.Based on: 1) the Applicant’s willful nondisclosure of his actual marijuana use and history of depression and treatment prior to enlisting, 2) his NJP for underage drinking,3) his drunk driving incidents and continuing alcohol incidents after his second treatment for...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150007995

    Original file (20150007995.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB determined the following medical conditions were not unfitting: TBI with cognitive disorder, NOS; right ankle strain with instability; PTSD; left knee patellofemoral syndrome; right knee patellofemoral syndrome; lumbar strain; left wrist strain; right wrist strain; left elbow cubital tunnel syndrome; hypertension; history of asthma; history of gastroenteritis; post-surgical scar, left ankle; erectile dysfunction; and alcohol abuse. If the VA changes the disability rating for the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400086

    Original file (ND1400086.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no indication in the evidence of record or in the documentation submitted by the Applicant that the Applicant was recommended for or processed for a medical board for PTSD by proper authority. The NDRB determined his discharge for Personality Disorder was proper, and no other narrative reason for separation more clearly describes why the Applicant was discharged. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00286

    Original file (PD2011-00286.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board next considered the rating at separation from military service. The Board considered impairments attributed to the CI’s PTSD in its overall §4.130 rating recommendation for bipolar disorder. The Board determined therefore that none of the stated conditions were subject to service disability rating.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00673

    Original file (PD2013 00673.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, the examiner noted that the CI did not socialize as much as he had before. At the VA C&P examination, the examiner noted that the CI was able to continue to work with the aid of medications. Regardless, the examiner determined that the CI did not have prostrating headaches in this examination only one month after separation.

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300764

    Original file (MD1300764.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. The NDRB determined this contention is without merit since DoD Instruction 1332.14 does not prohibit physicians other than clinical psychologists or psychiatrists from conducting PTSD or TBI screenings; it only directs that any diagnosis of PTSD must come from a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former...

  • 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...