Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400627
Original file (MD1400627.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20140204
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)       19990831 - 19991011     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 19991012     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20000317      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 06 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 42
MOS: 9900
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions):     Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):      Rifle

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 P1900.16E, effective 18 August1995 until 31 August 2001, 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 her discharge was improper due to misrepresentations by her recruiter and recruit training staff.
2.       The Applicant contends her chronic issues with her service - connected injury and her compensation by the Department of Veterans Affairs ( VA ) for the injury illustrate that she should have been h onorably medically discharged.

Decision

 Date: 20 1 4 0801           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 nonjudicial punishment or court-martial. However, the Applicant was diagnosed with Depressive Disorder N ot Otherwise Specified (NOS) and Passive-Ag gressive Personality with Borderline Traits by a qualified mental health professional on 25 February 2000. The diagnosing clinical psychologist recommended separation for fraudulent entry based on the Applicant’s past treatment history . Based on the o mission (s) committed by the Applicant when in the enlistment process , 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 .

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends her discharge was improper due to misrepresentations by her recruiter and recruit training staff. 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 her issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that the recruiter misled her through the recruitment process or that her recruit training staff improperly failed to act on her admissions during the M oment of T ruth . The record of evidence shows the Applicant was seen and assessed by the Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island Mental Health U nit on 25 February 2000 where she was diagnosed with Depressive Disorder NOS and Passive-Aggressive Personality with Borderline Traits by a qua lified clinical psychologist . On 28 February 2000 the Recruit Liaison Section recorded speaking with the Applicant’s mother and verifying “that she had spent several years in counseling for abuse” with a “history of attempts to hurt herself.” On this day the Applicant also wrote a statement stating , “I did not tell anyone of my mental treatment because at the time of enlistment I was told by a friend that it wouldn’t affect me. I have had some suicidal thoughts in boot camp. Also, I have recently been very depressed. Before I hurt myself I decided to get help from a doctor here … . I also didn’t tell about my ADHD because I thought I could handle the Marine Corps. I was wrong I can’t handle the stress of being here. I didn’t tell my recruiter nor anyone in the Marine Corps about my problems.” T he Applicant’s statements with in her application do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case or the evidence in the record . Relief denied.
: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends her chronic issues with her service - connected injury and her compensation by the VA for the injury illustrate that she should have been h onorably medically discharged. The NDRB did not have access to the Applicant’s VA medical record to confirm her in- and post-service medical condition. Regardless, t he NDRB is not bound by VA decisions, nor do VA decisions have any bearing on the decisions of the NDRB. Decisions reached by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to determine if former servicemembers rate certain VA benefits do not affect previous discharge decisions made by the Marine Corps . The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former servicemember is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the Marine Corps when determining a member’s discharge 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

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200077

    Original file (MD1200077.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant did divulge her medical history of dysmenorrhea and did receive a medical waiver to enlist from Marine Corps Recruiting Command. ” 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.

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301296

    Original file (MD1301296.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Therefore, the NDRB determined the Applicant’s separation code of HRB1, reenlistment code, and narrative reason of Homosexual Admission were proper at the time of discharge. The NDRB presumed that the Applicant’s separation by reason of Homosexual Admission in accordance with paragraph 6207 of the MARCORSEPMAN was proper and equitable at the time it was issued.In accordance with the 20 September 2011 Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel & Readiness) memorandum regarding the repeal of the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100830

    Original file (MD1100830.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant contends he was never informed of the charges against him when he submitted the request for separation in lieu of trial.6. Additionally, I understand that a separation with a characterization of service under other than honorable conditions is authorized. ” 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 | 2011_Marine | MD1101561

    Original file (MD1101561.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. The characterization of service received was appropriate considering the UCMJ violations. ” 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 | 2013_Marine | MD1301306

    Original file (MD1301306.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Subsequently, an administrative board voted 3-0 that the preponderance of the evidence supported the Applicant’s Homosexual Admission and recommended she be separated with an Uncharacterized characterization. Given the lack of any misconduct or derogatory counseling entries in the Applicant’s service record and her being notified solely for separation due to homosexual admission, the NDRB determined that the relief, as requested, is warranted. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301307

    Original file (MD1301307.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: Pertinent Regulation/Law A. Given the detailed documents...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201436

    Original file (MD1201436.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. Given the detailed documents of record, including the commanding officer’s preliminary inquiry and his statement in the administrative separation endorsement, the NDRB determined the Applicant’s separation by reason of Homosexual Admission in accordance with paragraph 6207 of the MARCORSEPMAN was...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100541

    Original file (ND1100541.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Applicant seeks a discharge upgrade and RE code change to reenlist in the U.S. Armed Forces.2. 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 Moreover, pursuant to Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel & Readiness) Memorandum...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301545

    Original file (ND1301545.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 | ND0901196

    Original file (ND0901196.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...