Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00699
Original file (ND03-00699.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SA, USN
Docket No. ND03-00699

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030313. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to “FAILURE TO ADAPT”. The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing before the Board in the Washington National Capital Region. In the acknowledgment letter, the Applicant was informed that the Board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal hearing. The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040812. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB. The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character and reason for discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Other physical/mental conditions – not a disability interfering with performance of duty, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620200.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1. “I have never been afraid of water and my discharge from the US Navy is incorrect.

I was hurt while in training and failed to jump into the pool due to chest pains. I was sent to sick call and found to have bruised a cervical rib. After 2 weeks in a rehab unit I was released back to my company. My company commander sent me to the Naval Hospital. I was seen by a civilian psychiatrist and diagnosed with a simple phobia of water. I was sent to a holding company and discharged after a two week stay.”
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Copy of Applicant’s original DD 214
Memorandum from Recruit Evaluation Unit, Department of Mental Health, Great Lakes, Illinois dated 04 Sep 1992
Letter from B_ J. E_, MA, LLP, CSW dated 22 Jan 2003
Letter from J_ A. D_, Jr. undated
Letter from T_ M. W_ dated 29 Jan 2003

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     911220 - 920804  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 920805               Date of Discharge: 920929

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 01 25
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 21                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 11                        AFQT: 53

 Highest Rate: SA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMA*                 Behavior: NMA             OTA: NMA

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

*No marks assigned.

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

ENTRY LEVEL SEPARATION/OTHER PHYSICAL/MENTAL CONDITIONS – NOT A DISABILITY INTERFERING WITH PERFORMANCE OF DUTY, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620200.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

920904:  Medical Evaluation: Diagnosis: Axis I: Simple phobia.

920923:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government due to other physical/mental conditions – not a disability interfering with performance of duty as evidenced by diagnosis of a simple phobia, EPTE 300.29
920923:  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27(b), elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.
920924:  Commanding Officer directed discharge, entry level separation by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a physical or mental condition not a disability as evidenced by diagnosis of simple phobia, EPTE 300.29.
030924:  Board for Correction of Naval Records corrected the narrative reason on Applicant’s DD-214 from other physical/mental conditions – personality disorder, to other physical/mental conditions – not a disability interfering with performance of duty. BCNR also changed Applicant’s reenlistment code from RE-4 to RE-3G.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19920929 with an entry level separation convenience of the government due to other physical/mental condition, not a disability interfering with performance of duty. (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).

Issue 1: Applicant claims that he was never afraid of water and that his discharge for a phobia of water is incorrect. In support of his contention, Applicant has submitted a statement from his current outpatient therapist as well as friends and family who claim he has never been afraid of water. T he Applicant was properly diagnosed with a simple phobia by competent medical authority on 920904. Specifically, Applicant’s military medical records state, “[Applicant] revealed that he informed his recruiter about his longstanding fear of contact with water…” and “[s]ince being forced in the pool on two separate occasions, his anxiety symptoms have appreciably worsened.” The evidence reviewed did not persuade the Board that this diagnosis and subsequent administrative separation was either improper or inequitable. Relief denied.

With regards to Applicant’s request to change his discharge to “honorable”, by regulation, members discharged within the first 180 days of enlistment are given characterization of service "Uncharacterized" or entry-level separation unless there were unusual circumstances regarding performance or conduct, which would merit an "honorable" characterization. Applicant's service record did not contain any unusual circumstances during his less than two months in the military to warrant a change of discharge to "honorable." The Applicant should be aware that, with respect to nonservice-related administrative matters, i.e., VA benefits, educational pursuits, and especially civilian employment, an uncharacterized separation is considered the equivalent of an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) discharge. Relief denied.

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge. The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to his discharge at that time. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.






Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C, effective 15 AUG 91 until 04 Mar 93, Article 3620200, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL FOR CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT .

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.

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 view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “ afls14.jag.af.mil ”.

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
                  720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
                  Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5023      


Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00520

    Original file (ND01-00520.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of applicant's DD Form 214 Thirty-one pages from applicant's service record PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 990625 - 990930 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 991001 Date of Discharge: 000522 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 00...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00646

    Original file (ND01-00646.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I was discharged in 92 for sleepwalking. I know that if you sleepwalk you will be discharged from the Navy. Documentation Only the service and medical records were reviewed, as the applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05199-10

    Original file (05199-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your . 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00750

    Original file (ND03-00750.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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).Issue 1 and 2: By regulation, members discharged within the first 180 days of enlistment are given characterization of services as “Uncharacterized” unless there were unusual circumstances regarding...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01087

    Original file (ND01-01087.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    My DD 214 form states my discharge as being uncharacterized and I am requesting that it be changed to show as being an Honorable Discharge. The Board found that a characterization of service of Entry Level Separation was warranted in this case, as the applicant was processed for separation prior to serving six months on active duty. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00141

    Original file (ND04-00141.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00141 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031029. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. My narrative reason for seperation states, “Personality Disorder”.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500337

    Original file (ND0500337.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant's service record did not contain any unusual circumstances during his less than two months in the military to warrant a change of discharge to honorable. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00044

    Original file (ND02-00044.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00044 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 011004, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Axis II: Paranoid features noted.971002: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government due physical or mental conditions not necessarily amounting to disability but affecting potential for continued active duty in the naval...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0601182

    Original file (ND0601182.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Medical Record Entries Related to Characterization of Service or Narrative Reason for Separation 20040506: Recruit Evaluation Unit, Naval Hospital Great Lakes. Elements of Discharge: [INVOLUNTARY] Discharge Process: Date Notified:20040625Reason for Discharge due to: Least Favorable Characterization Authorized: Date Applicant Responded to Notification: 20040625Rights Elected at Notification:Consult with Counsel Obtain Copies Submit Statement(s) (date)GCMCA Review Commanding Officer...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00935

    Original file (ND04-00935.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Issue 1: The Board found that in the Applicant’s case, the characterization of service and the narrative reason clearly describe why the Applicant was discharged. At this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider.