Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500589

Original file (ND0500589.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-HA, USN
Docket No. ND05-00589

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050216. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. The Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20051006. 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 of the discharge and reason for discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct .

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“I truly feel that I was a honest and good working corpsman. I loved my job. I was in he medical field 7 ½ years before joining the navy and I am currently a Medical Ass. I honestly did not try to do wrong with disregard. Things were blown out of proportion.”

Documentation

In addition to the service and medical records, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:

Applicant’s DD Form 214
Job/character reference from Staff Internist F_ M. W_, M.D., dtd October 29, 2002
Statement from Applicant, undtd
Evaluation Report and Counseling Record, dtd August 5, 2002 (2 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):

         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     20000428 - 20000501                        COG
         Active: None

Period of Service Under Review :

Date of Enlistment: 20000502             Date of Discharge: 20030328

Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 10 26
         Inactive: None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

         Unauthorized absence:    None
         Confinement:                       None

Age at Entry: 27

Years Contracted: 4 (12 month extension)

Education Level: 12 (Career Education Center     AFQT: 46

Highest Rate: HN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance: 3.25 (4)                      Behavior: 2.75 (4)                OTA: 2.92

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214): National Defense Service Medal

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/ PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

030224: Psychiatric Evaluation: “HN G_ (Applicant is a 27 year-old single female, E3/USN, with two years and nine months of active duty, who has had several urgent Mental Health Examinations over the past few weeks due to difficulty controlling her behavior and modulating her anger.” … “She’s also had problems conforming her behavior to acceptable standards and as a result has been the subject of disciplinary action.”
         Assessment: “HN G_ has a long-standing pattern of rebelling against authority and difficulty adapting to external demands. She tends to place her personal needs over the needs of others and appears to have no reservations about reneging on obligations if it suits her purpose. This pattern of behavior appears to be longstanding and is not likely to change in the near future.”
         Diagnosis: Axis I: Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood
         Axis II: Personality Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified, with Narcissistic and Antisocial Traits
         Findings and Recommendations: “HN G_ suffers from a longstanding disorder of character and behavior of such severity to interfere with her ability to function effectively in the military environment. Individuals with this type of personality disorder are unproductive and often consume considerable command attention and resources while contributing little to mission accomplishment. Her personality characteristics are rigid and she lacks flexibility, motivation, and insight for change. She also has adjusted poorly to the demands of military service despite appropriate leadership, counseling, and discipline. While not imminently suicidal, she is an ongoing risk for harm to self or others and to negatively impact unit morale. Therefore, it is recommended that she be administratively separated from the Navy per MILPERSMAN 1910-122.”

030228: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: HN G_ (Applicant) did on or about 030211 at 0645 was UA from her appointed place of duty.          Award: Extra duty for 30 days, reduction to E-2. No indication of appeal in the record.

030328: DD Form 214: Applicant discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of pattern of misconduct, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140.

Service Record did not contain the Administrative Discharge package.
Service Record was missing elements of the Summary of Service.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20030328 by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A) with a service characterization of general (under honorable conditions). After a thorough review of the available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (B and C). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (D).

Normally, to permit relief, an impropriety or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such impropriety or inequity is evident during the Applicant’s enlistment. When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable. A general discharge is warranted for behavior not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. T he Applicant was awarded nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 20030211 for a violation of UCMJ Article 86, unauthorized absence. Although the record is incomplete, the Applicant’s psychiatric evaluation establishes continued misconduct in addition to this NJP. The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs. This presumption permits the Board to presume that the Applicant committed the misconduct for which she was separated and the government obeyed all applicable regulations in the separations process. The Applicant bears the burden of establishing her issues through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to rebut the government’s presumption of regularity in this case. The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case. By unanimous vote, the NDRB applied the presumption of regularity and, on that basis, concluded the discharge was both proper and equitable. Relief is not warranted.

The Applicant contends that racism played a role in the command’s decision to discharge her. As noted above, the government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs. This presumption also permits the Board to presume that the government’s agents acted in good faith, proceeded within the bounds of the law, and conformed their behavior to appropriate standards during the Applicant’s Naval service and subsequent administrative processing. The Applicant bears the burden of establishing her issues through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that she was the victim of racism. The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case. Relief denied.

There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining educational benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief. Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.

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. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 Aug 2002 until Present, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600), SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety .

C. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity .

D. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

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 “ http://Boards.law.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:

                  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

NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500527

Original file (ND0500527.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. As the representative, we ask that consideration be given to equitable relief, as this is a matter that involves a determination whether a discharge should be changed under the equity standards, to include any issue upon which the applicant submits to the Board’s discretionary authority, under SECNAVIST 5420.174D. recommended separation based on a personality disorder of such...
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600162

Original file (ND0600162.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Petty Officer M_(Applicant) was separated locally for personality disorder, pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense. The Applicant implies that his discharge was improper due to contradicting statements from his command and because he was not “given the right to take matters further up Chain of Command.” In the Applicant’s remarks from DD Form 293, the Applicant implies that he was denied his “rights to see the admiral.” The Applicant also states that he was not given...
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301555

Original file (ND1301555.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are...
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700226

Original file (ND0700226.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Date Applicant Responded to Notification:20030812 Rights Elected at Notification: Consult with Counsel Obtain Copies of Documents Submit Statement(s) (date) Administrative Board GCMCA review Separation Authority (date): COMMANDING OFFICER, CENTER OF CRYPTLOGY, CORRY STATION, PENSACOLA (20030909)Reason for discharge directed: - Characterization directed: Date Applicant Discharged: 20031027 Types of Documents Submitted by Applicant and Considered By BoardRelated to Military Service: Service...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500497

Original file (ND0500497.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the contention of the appellant in his request for a discharge upgrade of his current General Under Honorable Conditions discharge to Honorable, with a change of the narrative reason to Medical Retirement. J. H_, PHD, Staff Psychologist040209: Medical evaluation by Branch...
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600471

Original file (ND0600471.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ND06-00471 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20060208. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Bill to assist me in paying for my education.” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 2145 pages from Applicant’s Medical RecordLtr from Applicant E_ M. T_, dtd...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501171

Original file (ND0501171.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed to “Medical Discharge.” The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. AXIS I: Major depression, recurrent 296.30 EPTE Relationship Problem NOS, V62.81 Bereavement, V62.82 AXIS II: 301.83 Borderline Personality Disorder AXIS III: Has fibroid problems AXIS V: Current Global Assessment of Functioning:...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1002190

Original file (ND1002190.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)20020404 - 20020610Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20020611Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20040916Highest Rank/Rate:SNLength of Service: Year(s)Month(s)06 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: NFIREvaluationMarks:Performance:3.0(2)Behavior:2.5(2)OTA: 2.83Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):Periods of...
NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00834

Original file (ND03-00834.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ND03-00834 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030409. At this time, the Board determined that the documentation submitted by the Applicant does not mitigate his misconduct while on active duty. 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.
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600565

Original file (ND0600565.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. I would process for separation due to adjustment disorder. 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:Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500589

Similar Decisions