Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00901
Original file (ND99-00901.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AGC, USN
Docket No. ND99-00901

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990622, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to convenience of the government. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000406. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service. The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall change. The discharge shall change: HONORABLE / SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 164 (formerly 3630900).


PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.       My discharge was based on adverse side effects I was having to medications prescribed by urology at Balboa Medical Hospital in San Diego for my chronic illness. I had a very successful naval career before my illness progressed to the point the pain and discomfort became intolerable.
2.       I have received numerous letters of commendation and recommendation throughout my career. I earned three good conduct medals, 2 Navy Achievement medals and was selected to become a limited duty officer.
3.       My administrative discharge was the result of my well-documented chronic illness Interstitial Cystitis which I have suffered with since 1987 while stationed in Guam. My illness was overlooked and downplayed as a “hysterical female condition”. This illness has caused me severe physical and mental anguish not to mention the lost relationships. It is extremely embarrassing to talk about and for several years I just suffered in silence. There is no cure for this rare disease and many of the treatments are extremely painful including bladder surgery which I had while stationed in Guam in 1988, unfortunately the surgery made my symptoms worse and as the years went by my condition became more and more painful. Please see Document #1 enclosures on the disease “Interstitial Cystitis”.
4.       In 1997 the pain was so severe and I was constantly going to sick call I requested a medical discharge this request was initially denied because I had not exhausted all various treatments for IC even though I had already under gone surgery for the same condition while stationed in Guam. I then requested to go to a drug free pain clinic in August 1997 this was also denied because of non-availability of acupuncture or biofeedback treatment at Balboa Hospital San Diego. I then requested a non-availability statement from Dr. R---- he refused saying all such requests he had done in the past had come back denied. I felt my only option at this point was prescription medication which was also the beginning of the end of my career. Please see Document #2 enclosures from my naval record.
5.       The prescribed medications I was on included Prozac which was prescribed for pain and caused such severe reactions I was placed on Zoloft and valium for bladder spasms, Ambien for sleep, pyridium an analgesic for bladder pain, and various antibiotics for chronic bladder infections. The medications caused all kinds of problems and I should not have been going to work or driving but a lot of the changes in my behavior I could not see, all I felt was that the pain was not as intense and that was all I cared about. I experienced amnesia, insomnia, nervousness, I was late for work, in a car crash, I missed appointments and could not hold a train of thought. I was accused of making false official statements because I could not remember what days I did what. I was accused of being a drug addict and alcoholic even though I do not drink and do not do recreational drugs-the substance abuse charges were dropped at the administrative board.
6.       My illness does not gather much sympathy because its rare, because its thought to be just a female disease and because on the outside a person looks fine. My illness plus the prescription drugs are what caused my erratic behavior and that is what ended my very successful 12 year Navy career. I do not blame anybody there is no way I could have continued working in the condition I was in, I do feel I should have been allowed the option of going to a drug free pain clinic or a medical discharge before it was to late. I was a 4.0 model sailor for over 10 of those 12 years. I was selected to become a Limited Duty Officer, I was also the American Red Cross volunteer of the year. I strongly feel my illness is of no fault of my own and that I deserve a honorable discharge. Please see Document #3 Letters of Recommendation.

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214.
Copy of DD 214 from enlistment 860311 to 891215
Medical Documentation on Interstitial Cystits (17 pages)
Documentation from Naval Medical Record (16 pages)
Letters of Recommendation from Capt R___ C___ dated 15 April 1999
Application for Active Duty Limited Duty Officer Program (11 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USN                        860311 – 931214  HON
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     000000 - 000000  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 931215              Date of Discharge: 980708

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 04 06 24
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 32                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 65

 Highest Rate: AGC

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 2.5 (4)              Behavior: 2.25 (4)                OTA: 2.38 on a 4.0 scale
                  4.0 (on a 4.0 scale)     4.0 (on a 4.0 scale)     4.0 on a 4.0 scale

Military Decorations: NAM (2), GCM(3)

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: M-14 RMR, OSR(3), MUC, NDSM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 0

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

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL) /MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

970317:  Counseling: Advised of deficiency (substandard performance and alcohol related incident while in uniform), notified of corrective actions and assistance available.
970331:  Applicant received a Letter of Instruction for substandard performance while assigned to provide meteorological support for SEAL Team Five.
980506:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (3 Specs):
Unauthorized absence; violation of UCMJ Article 107: False official statement; violation of UCMJ Article 112a: Wrongful use of a controlled substance (butalbital)
         Award: Forfeiture of $1069.30 per month for 2 months (suspended for six months) restriction and extra duty for 45 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
980424:          Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
980701:  An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed a serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general). The board, by a vote of 2 to 1, found that the applicant did not commit misconduct – drug abuse.

980708:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Commanding officer’s comments: “AGC D____ experienced profound medical and personal problems over the last two years. I have no doubt that these issues caused the gross and well-documented decline in her professional performance, which heretofore had been superb. Yet she was given extensive medical assistance for interstitial cystitis, in depth substance abuse counseling, and every opportunity to deal with her son’s substance abuse problem. Her “last chance” took the form of a letter of instruction. A subsequent serious lapse caused me to rescind her recommendation for promotion and withdraw her command duty officer qualification. Further misconduct resulted in non-judicial punishment and the administrative boards. Immediately following her board, I learned that she had committed several more infractions while in restricted status including fraternization, driving a vehicle off base, smoking in her barracks room , and improper grooming standards.
                  I fully support the findings and recommendations of AGC D____’s Administrative Separation board detailed in enclosure (1). I agree that the preponderance of evidence indicates that she did make false official statement and therefore committed a serious offense worthy of administrative separation under a general discharge. I respect and uphold the board’s findings that the preponderance of evidence did not prove misconduct – drug abuse. However, I personally disagree with that ruling. Otherwise I would not have found her guilty of drug abuse at Captain’s Mast.
                  In summary, AGC D___’s performance during the last 24 months has been unsatisfactory. She has been given enough opportunity to correct her deficiencies, but has shown no improvement. Her total disregard for orders and regulations is unacceptable and not in line with good order and discipline in the United States Navy. AGC D___ has no potential for Naval Service”.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 980708 under honorable conditions (general) 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 but not equitable (C and D).

After reviewing the applicant’s service record and medical record, the Board determined that the applicant’s ability to serve was severely hampered due to the applicant’s medical condition and her subsequent prescription drug use. Specifically, the Board felt that there was substantial evidence that the applicant was not capable of using sound judgement and reason surrounding the events for which she was discharged due to her prescription medicine. Therefore, the applicant’s discharge will be upgraded to Honorable and the reason changed to Secretarial Authority. While the applicant has been granted all the relief the NDRB has to offer, she is encouraged to present her case to the Board of Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) for any possible further relief.


 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)
 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective
12 Dec 97 until Present, Article 1910-142 [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION 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.
E. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 12 Dec 97 until Present, Article 1910-164 [formerly 3630900]. SEPARATION BY REASON OF BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE (BIOTS).

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

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00816

    Original file (PD2012-00816.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The CI had a history of chronic urinary urgency, frequency, nocturia, and pelvic pain with urination and she was diagnosed with interstitial cystitis in April 2001. A note a month later indicated the CI was voiding every 3 to 4 hours during the day and had nocturia once nightly. A 10% disability rating is assigned for daytime voiding interval between 2 and 3 hours, or; awakening to void 2 times per night and the available record contains no evidence to support a frequency greater than this...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-00089

    Original file (PD-2014-00089.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of theVeterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. The VA rated the condition (prostatodynia with prostatitis, interstitial cystitis with urinary frequency and bladder neck hypertrophy) at 40% based on the CI’s report of urinary frequency at the time of the post...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD 2013 00954

    Original file (PD 2013 00954.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The PEB adjudicated “chronic pelvic pain syndrome associated with chronic interstitial cystitis and pain disorder as unfitting, rated 30% with application of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) and placed the CI on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL).The PEB also adjudicated the migraine headaches as a Category II condition (one that can be unfitting but is not currently compensable or ratable). The Board then reviewed the medical records in evidence. BOARD FINDINGS :...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120001802

    Original file (20120001802.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests correction of his medical records to show a line of duty (LOD): "No" as "Yes," and a finding of existed prior to service (EPTS): "Yes," as "No." The applicant contends that his medical records should be corrected by changing DA Form 3947 dated 21 November 2005 to show an LOD: "No" as "Yes," and a finding of EPTS: "Yes," as "No." The available evidence clearly shows the determination that the applicant's medical condition had existed prior to his entry into military...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064831C070421

    Original file (2001064831C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He states that although her supervisor referred to symptoms associated with the applicant’s lupus, the applicant also suffered from interstitial cystitis, but her medical record was devoid of clinical information regarding that disorder. In an 8 February 2001 memorandum to the VA in support of the applicant’s medical compensation claim, the applicant’s former supervisor stated that the applicant’s duty hours and ability to function as a physician were significantly more limited [than 50...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9307980

    Original file (9307980.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 23 September 1991 a physical evaluation board (PEB) was convened and determined that the applicant was physically unfit due to interstitial cystitis with dysuria, frequency and nocturia, rated as moderately severe. The PEB then determined the applicant’s one unfitting condition to be 20 percent disabling and recommended that he be discharged with severance pay. Army Regulation 635-40 provides that members who do not meet medical retention standards will be referred to a PEB for a...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 00788

    Original file (PD2012 00788.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    In an addendum to the MEB dated August, 2001 approximately 8 months prior to separation, the physician who performed the last surgery, stated that on his exam done about 11 months prior to separation, the CI had mild impingement and “near full range-of-motion of the right shoulder”and no pain, although she reported “activity-related subacromial bursitis type symptoms with aching.”The physical exam at the time of the addendum by the orthopedic provider, documented ROM as flexion to 90...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01051

    Original file (ND99-01051.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-01051 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990802, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 981103: Commander, Naval Medical Center, San Diego, directed the applicant's discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of drug abuse rehabilitation failure. In response to issue 5, the Board has no obligation to change the applicant's discharge in order to allow her to go back to school.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069375C070402

    Original file (2002069375C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Although the advisory opinion comments are correct in stating that he was taking Valium to combat the pain, which negated his ability to fly, and the urinary frequency was not specifically addressed to the PEB; however, frequency is indeed addressed in several medical opinion letters and in the commander’s statement, which clearly states the he was provided the pain medication in order to combat the pain he experienced as a result of an over active bladder, in his case as a result of the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00168

    Original file (ND99-00168.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Letter of Support from Beaverton Senior Resource Center Department of Aging & Veterans' Service Letter from applicant (3pgs) Copy of DD Form 214 Letter from S____ C. H____, M.D Copies from Medical Records (37pgs) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 890628 - 890808 COG...