ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Applicant’s Request:     Characterization change to:
         Narrative Reason change to:

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:        USMCR (DEP)      20051026 - 20060723     Active: 

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20060724    Age at Enlistment:
Period of Enlistment: Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20090710     Highest Rank:
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 17 Day(s)
Education Level:        AFQT: 48
MOS: 2311
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions): () / ()   Fitness Reports:

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):     Rifle MM (2)

Periods of UA/CONF:

NJP:

- 20090107:      Article (Failure to obey order or regulation)
         Article (Provoking speeches or gestures)
         Awarded: Suspended: Suspension vacated 20090217

- 20090304:      Article (Failure to obey order or regulation)
         Awarded: Suspended:

SCM:

SPCM:

CC:

Retention Warning Counseling:

- 20090107:      For misconduct, specifically, your recent NJP for violation of Articles 92 and 117 of the UCMJ held 20090107.

- 20090305:      For misconduct, specifically, your recent NJP for violation of Article 92 held on 20090304.






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:        

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A. Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT , 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 .

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.       The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable because his misconduct was attributed mostly to his diagnosis of combat related post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other mental health disorders.

Decision


Date: 20141106           Location: Washington D.C.        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 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 included 6105 counseling warnings, and for of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation; 2 specifications), and Article 117 (Provoking speeches or gestures). Based on the offense(s) committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board. On 8 May 2009, an Administrative Separation Board determined that a preponderance of evidence proved the Applicant’s pattern of misconduct, and recommended the Applicant be separated from the Marine Corps with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. The Separation Authority agreed with the Board’s recommendation, and the Applicant was discharged on 10 July 2009.

The Applicant stated that he was diagnosed with PTSD related to his combat service in Iraq. The Applicant’s service record documents completion of a deployment in the Al-Anbar and Diyala Provinces of Iraq from November 2007 to May 2008, conducting combat operations in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. As a result of the Applicant’s claim of PTSD or 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.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable because his misconduct was attributed mostly to his diagnosis of combat related post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other mental health disorders. The Applicant’s record shows that he was awarded a Meritorious Mast for outstanding performance at Marine Combat Training Battalion during entry level training, and another Meritorious Mast from Marine Corps Detachment, Redstone Arsenal for professional performance in Ammunition Technician Class 503-07. The Applicant served in a combat deployment to Iraq from November 2007 until May 2008, and was awarded a Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal for superior performance during his deployment. That same month, the Applicant began treatment at the Quantico Behavioral Health Department for acute behavior problems of sleep disturbance, nightmares, hyper-vigilance, and isolative behaviors. He was diagnosed by Navy psychiatrists with PTSD, major depressive disorder, and attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD) in June 2008. The Applicant was admitted to Bethesda Navy Hospital in September 2008 for suicide ideation with a plan for suicide. In November 2008, the Applicant received proficiency and conduct evaluation marks of 4.8 and 4.8, respectively. The Applicant’s pattern of misconduct that eventually lead to his administrative discharge began in January 2009 with a NJP for violation of an order against underage drinking of alcohol, and giving a “Hitler sign” to another Marine. In March 2009, the Applicant received a vacation of the suspended portion of his NJP sentence, and a second NJP for violation of orders by having a 30-30 caliber ammunition round in his barracks room. Having now established a pattern of misconduct, the Applicant was administratively processed for separation. After carefully reviewing the Applicant’s total record of service, and service medical records, and written testimony from the Applicant’s Psychiatrist and Licensed Clinical Social Worker, the NDRB determined the Applicant warranted an upgrade of his discharge to Honorable. 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 change to HONORABLE and the narrative reason for separation shall remain PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

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