Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00325
Original file (ND99-00325.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-RP1, USN
Docket No. ND99-00325

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 981223, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The applicant listed a private representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 990525. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service. The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.



PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

 1. The Social Security doctor in Hollow Springs classified (applicant) as disabled. He was suffering from Hodgkins Disease, and taking strong medication as prescribed.

2. In 1995 (applicant) went to the Mental Health Clinic in Joshua Tree, CA and was diagnosed as mentally and physically disabled.

3. (Applicant) has been unable to work since his discharge. His bones are very fragile, and has suffered from a broken leg, hand, wrist and fingers trying to work.

4. (Applicant) is presently in critical condition in Marptte Medical Center in Memphis, Tenn. He was shopping in a Mini-Mart in Ashland, Mississippi when a robber entered with a gun. (Applicant) tried to help a customer and was shot.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Statement on applicant's condition
Copy of applicant's marriage license

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USN               810928 - 840913  HON
                  USN              841226 - 921217  HON
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     810825 - 810827  COG
USNR (DEP)      841127 - 841225  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 921218               Date of Discharge: 950407

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 03 20
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 38                          Years Contracted: 6

 Education Level: 16                        AFQT: 83

 Highest Rate: RP1

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMA                  Behavior: NMA             OTA: NMA

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: SSDR, NDSM, KLM, SASM, CAR, NUC, AFEM, OSR (3), ESWSI, HSM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 55

Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

930521:  Applicant to unauthorized absence 0600, 93May21.

930621:  Applicant declared a deserter.

930628:  Applicant apprehended and charged by civil authorities. Assault with a deadly weapon (battery).

930629:  Applicant returned to military control, 0635, 93Jun29 (38 days/apprehended).

930720:  Applicant declared a deserter, having been unauthorized absentee since 0730, 19Jul93.

930809:  Report of return of deserter. Apprehended by civil authorities in Palm Springs, CA at 0300, 93Aug06. Delivered to military control 0300, 93Aug06 (17 days/apprehended).

931110:  Mental Health Department: Inquiry Board into Mental Capacity/Mental Responsibility: Summary and Conclusions: (a) At the time of the alleged criminal conduct, the accused had a mental disease. (b) The clinical psychiatric diagnoses are: Axis I: Major depression. Axis III: Nodular Lymphocyte Predominant Hodgkin's Disease. (c) At the time of the alleged criminal conduct, the accused was not able to appreciate the nature and quality, or wrongfulness of is conduct. (d) The accused possesses sufficient mental capacity to understand the nature of the proceedings and to conduct or cooperate intelligently in his defense.

940123:  The San Bernadino Sheriff’s department reported that the applicant forced his spouse at gun point to take him to S____ market so she could cash a $30.00 check and give him the money. Once inside the market the victim was able to get away from the suspect and exit the back door. The police turned the applicant back over to military control.

940209:  NAVDRUGLAB San Diego, CA, reported applicant’s urine sample, received 940131, tested positive for cocaine.

940509:  Inquiry Board into Mental Capacity/Mental Responsibility: Summary and Conclusions: a. At the time of the alleged criminal conduct, the accused did have a mental defect. He was experiencing an acute intoxication from cocaine. b. The clinical psychiatric diagnoses as determined in accordance with reference (b) for the accused are: Axis I: Cocaine dependence, Alcohol Dependence. Axis II: Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Axis III: Nodular Lymphocyte Predominant Hodgkin's Disease. c. Although psychologically and physically affected by the stimulant at the time of the alleged criminal conduct, the accused was able to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of his conduct. d. The accused has sufficient mental capacity to understand the nature of the proceedings and to conduct or cooperate intelligently in his defense.

941003:  Naval Medical Center San Diego, Hematology/Oncology: Summary of applicant's oncologic history: ...first problem with Hodgkin's disease in October 1970 at age 16 when lymph node biopsy from his neck showed this diagnosis, treated with radiation therapy. Second lymph node appeared in the treated area approximately 1 year later, treated with 3 cycles of combination chemotherapy. In Jan 7 and May 85 he had lymph nodes biopsical from his left arm and his left groin which were non-diagnostic but suspicious for early relapse. Came to my attention in December 1992 when a lymph node biopsied from the right neck showed Hodgkin's Disease once again. A complete reevaluation then showed no definite tumor elsewhere, elected to give no treatment and observe. July 1994 patient complaining of migratory pains in his extremities, a repeat CT scan of the abdomen was done, showing increased size of lymph nodes at several sites below the diaphragm. After some logistic difficulties a biopsy was performed 9/14/94 showing recurrent modular lymphocyte predominant Hodgkin's disease.....

941013:  Fitness for confinement: Applicant diagnosed with widespread lymphoma and needs chemotherapy immediately. In my opinion the brig is not suitable place for a patient in an immune compromised condition. Therefore, I find applicant unfit for confinement.

941105:  Applicant request refill of percocet for post chemo pain. Applicant with widespread Hodgkin's Disease.

941122:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse and commission of serious offenses.
941202:  Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
941205:  An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed drug abuse and serious offenses, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions.
950214:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse and commission of a serious offense. Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim): Involvement with civilian authorities: Applicant has been arrested for conspiracy to steal, assault, carrying a concealed weapon, kidnapping, robbery and resisting arrest. Summary of military offenses: Applicant was pending a General courts-martial for the offenses listed above and for those offenses indicated in the Notice of Board Procedures, specifically, possession of drug paraphernalia, purchasing and using cocaine, and unauthorized absence. Because of his medical condition (Hodgkin's Disease), charges were withdrawn and applicant was referred to an Administrative Board. There has been no conviction or finding of guilty a(t) Captain's Mast. I recommend that RP1 (applicant) be separated under other than honorable conditions for drug abuse and commission of serious offenses. Enclosure (3) reveals that RP1 (applicant) continues to undermine the rules and regulations of the United States Naval Service and the Civilian Community. He was arrested by civilian authority for public intoxication and resisting arrest.

950314:  BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 950407 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B). 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).

The applicant’s next of kin issue 1 states “he was suffering from Hodgkin’s disease and taking strong medication as prescribed” and “was diagnosed as mentally and physically disabled.” A medical diagnosis, on active duty or during post-service, and whether proper or improper, is not an issue upon which this Board can grant relief. When reviewing a discharge, the Board does consider the extent to which a medical problem, diagnosed or undiagnosed while on active duty, might effect an applicant’s performance and ability to conform to the military’s standards of conduct and discipline. The Board does not consider the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s diagnosis or any medical treatment given to the applicant to be of sufficient nature to exculpate the applicant from his misconduct of record. Relief is not warranted.

The Board reviews the propriety (did the USN follow its own rules in processing the applicant for discharge) and equity (did the applicant receive a discharge characterization in keeping with the USN guidance or was the characterization typical of other service members being separated for the same reason) of each applicant’s discharge. Finally, the Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (what has the applicant done since discharge to become a contributing member of his community and to society in general). In the applicant’s case, there was absolute propriety and equity used in the determination of the applicant’s discharge. The applicant has not provided any documentation of post service good character and conduct.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 9, effective
22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

C. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

D. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.
[FOR USE WITH COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE OR CIVILIAN CONVICTION AS APPROPRIATE]
B. Under the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article [e.g., 86, for unauthorized absence for a period in excess of 30 days] if adjudged at a Special or General Court-Martial.

PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT
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 Directive 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Directive. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive 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 obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to:
                  DA Military Review Boards Agency
                  Management Information and Support Directorate
                  Armed Forces Reading Room
                  Washington, D.C. 20310-1809

The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:

                  Naval Council of Personnel Boards
                  Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board
                  Washington Navy Yard
                  720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
                  Washington, D.C. 20374-5023     


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013076

    Original file (20100013076.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests reinstatement to active duty for medical treatment and evaluation by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) for lymphoma. He states he was discharged without an evaluation of his severe medical diagnosis of lymphoma. d. A definitive diagnosis was not established by 31 January 2010 as the applicant was in the process of a full evaluation for lymphoma.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018522

    Original file (20140018522.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In July 2010, while on active duty, he received an MRI scan on his back. The applicant states he wasn’t told until January 2012 when he started to receive chemotherapy of any indication of the possibility of cancer or that an evaluation was recommended back in July 2010. It is likely, however, that even if the applicant stayed on active duty beyond 23 September 2011, that the Secretary concerned most likely would have denied his request to complete his 20 years of active duty service based...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03038-10

    Original file (03038-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, 7itting in executive session, considered your application on 25 January 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. On 5 December 1994 an ADB recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reaton of misconduct due to commission of a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00441

    Original file (ND03-00441.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:None PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: None Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 940802 Date of Discharge: 950407 Length of Service (years, months,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00948

    Original file (ND01-00948.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00948 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010717, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. 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).Issues 1 and 2. You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at "...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 00680

    Original file (PD 2012 00680.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Bilateral Groin Pain. The profile further recommended a MOS/Medical Review Board (MMRB). He was evaluated and found to have multiple painful lymph nodes and otherwise his extensive workup did not reveal an etiology for his symptoms.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009553

    Original file (20060009553.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. (a disease of bone marrow that is characterized by the presence of numerous myelomas in various bones of the body). Without evidence to establish a direct, causal relationship to the applicant’s VA rated disabilities to war or the simulation of war, there is insufficient basis in which to grant his request.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01923

    Original file (BC-2003-01923.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    The February 1979, TDRL evaluation showed his Hodgkin's Disease was still in remission and he had recovered from his Guillain Barre Syndrome with only minimal evidence of any residual weakness. The BCMR Medical Consultant's complete advisory is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that he elected not to reenlist because he was forced to find work while he was on the TDRL. After...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001100

    Original file (20140001100.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Because the applicant's physical condition was not medically unfitting for retention at the time of his discharge there was no basis for a medical retirement or disability separation from active duty. The Army must find that a service member is physically unfit to reasonably perform his or her duties and assign an appropriate disability rating before he or she can be medically retired or separated from active duty. The Army must find that a service member is physically unfit to reasonably...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01058

    Original file (PD-2013-01058.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The DVT condition, characterized as “recurrent left lower extremity DVT,” was forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501.No other conditions were submitted by the MEB.The Informal PEB (IPEB) adjudicated “deep vein thrombosis, left lower extremity with pulmonary embolism (resolved)”as unfitting, rated 20%. The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the Veterans Affairs...