Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500677
Original file (ND0500677.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AN, USN
Docket No. ND05-00677

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20050308. The Applicant requests the 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 list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20050727. 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 3 to 2 that the character of the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/CONDITION, NOT A DISABILITY, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-120 (formerly 3620200).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“I believe my discharge was unjust simply because my superiors at the time told me that I was given this discharge because of a previous incident that I had already been punished for. I had went to Capt.. Mast for not being at my recall. I was young and very na i ve at the time, by the time I had received my discharge I had not any other mishaps. I was also a model sailor.”

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214
Character reference, dated January 29, 2005
Character reference, dated February 3, 2005

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     980717 - 090817  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 980818                        Date of Discharge: 010611

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 09 24
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 17 Parental Consent                Years Contracted: 4 (12 month extension)

 Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 31

 Highest Rate: AN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.25 (4)             Behavior: 2.25 (4)                OTA: 3.07

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/CONDITION, NOT A DISABILITY, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-120 (formerly 3620200).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

990528:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence on 990525.
         Award: Restriction and extra duty for 30 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
001208:  Fleet Mental Health Unit, San Diego, Diagnostic Assessment: AXIS I: 296.3 Major Depressive Disorder, single, 309.81 PTSD, AXIS II: None, AXIS III: No diagnosis, AXIS IV: Unresolved childhood relational and abuse problems. No primary support group, AXIS V (current): 71-80 Job performance unimpaired, but she experiences unacceptable levels of intrapsychic discomfort.
010105:  Naval Medical Center, San Diego, Emergency Care and Treatment: Applicant became upset, some tunnel vision, sweaty palms and became tearful. History of manic depression, currently taking Prozac and Naprosyn. Impression: Situational Disturbance.
010112:  Applicant placed on medical hold for 60 days. Recommend orders to USS PELELIU not be cancelled.
010226:  Medical Evaluation: Diagnostic Assessment: AXIS I: Major depressive disorder, single PTSD, bereavement.
010305:  Fleet Mental Health Unit, San Diego: Although Applicant fit for full duty, she has several mental health issues that existed prior to service and most likely will continue with little benefit from treatment. Although not currently suicidal, considered low risk at this point, she represents a continuing danger of harm to herself and others. These are incompatible with military service.
010308:  Applicant re-screened and found not fit for sea duty or remote duty.

 010330:  Fleet Mental health Unit, San Diego, Memorandum: Applicant under psychiatric care for mental health since January 2001. Current diagnoses are Major Depressive Disorder chronic, moderate; Bulimia Nervosa; Social Phobia. She currently does not have a personality disorder diagnosis. She is currently not deployable due to medications and strong possibility of recurrence of her depression under stressful conditions. Her condition does not constitute a disability but makes her unsuitable for continued military service. Recommend administrative separation for her medical condition IAW MILPERSMAN 1910-120.
010404:  NI, Flight Medicine Clinic, Telephone Consultation: Pt pregnant. Desires pregnancy. Pt in process of admin. sep. and concerned about lack on income/housing/care for child/mental health f/u once discharge. … Pt has discontinued Risperdal and will continue SSRI. Pt understands risks associated with SSRI use vs. placebo in pregnancy and desires continuation. D/W Dr. S_ and she concurs with therapy and recommends continuation of admin sep paperwork
010423:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge 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 service. The Applicant was notified that the least favorable characterization of service possible is general (under honorable conditions).
010423:  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with qualified counsel, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.
010515:  Commanding Officer, Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron Light FOUR ONE recommended discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a. physical or mental conditions not necessarily amounting to disability but affecting potential for continued active duty in the naval service as evidenced by documented mental conditions. Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim): “AN J_ L. F_ ( Applicant ) is not able to serve or deploy as a member of the armed forces due to documented mental conditions which effect her potential for continued naval service. I strongly recommended that AN F_ ( Applicant ) ’ s separation be characterized as General.”

The Service Record contains a partial Administrative Discharge Package.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20010611 with a general (under honorable conditions) for convenience of the government due to a physical or mental condition, not a disability. (A). 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).

The Applicant contends that she served the United States well and she is entitled to an upgrade. 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’s service was marred by nonjudicial punishment proceedings for a violation of Article 86 of the UCMJ for unauthorized absence. Furthermore, the evidence of record indicated that the Applicant failed a semi-annual physical readiness test and had relatively poor marks on her Enlisted Evaluation Report and Counseling Record. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of her service, reflects her willful failure to meet the requirements of her contract with the U.S. Navy. Such conduct falls far short of that expected of a member of the U.S. military and does not meet the requirements for an upgrade of her characterization of service. The Board voted 3 to 2 that relief is not warranted.

There is no law or regulation, which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded, based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving Naval service. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge 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. Examples of documentation that could be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities. The Board received and considered all of the Applicant’s submissions, including her character reference letters, detailing her strong job performance. After careful consideration, the Board concluded the Applicant’s post-service achievements have been insufficient to mitigate his misconduct while in the Naval service. 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 additional claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to her discharge at that time. 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), Change 24, effective
20 May 99 until 27 Aug 01, Article 1910-120 (formerly 3620200), SEPARATION BY REASON OF CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT - PHYSICAL OR MENTAL CONDITIONS.

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 | 2006_Navy | ND0600153

    Original file (ND0600153.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Naval Discharge Review Board. Neither the evidence of record nor in the documentation submitted by the Applicant show that the Applicant should have been separated for any other reason.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501476

    Original file (ND0501476.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20010911 by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder (A) with a service characterization of general (under honorable conditions). The Applicant was discharged on 20010911 with a DD Form 214 that listed the separation authority as MILPERSMAN 1910-102 and the narrative reason for separation as personality disorder. On 20010926, the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00945

    Original file (ND02-00945.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    900202: Naval Medical Clinic, NAS North Island, CA: This 23 year old female technician (Applicant) from Oregon, 12 years formal education, 12 months active duty in the U.S. Navy, married 18 months, unable to [provide] her husband's location, one child from previous relationship is referred to this facility for clinical evaluation following suicidal ideation yesterday and probable suicidal gesture prevented by her roommate. Pt (Applicant) referred to Psychiatry Naval Hospital San Diego for...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600842

    Original file (ND0600842.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Consequently, EM3 O_ is being separated from the Naval Service with a general discharge (Under Honorable Conditions).” PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20010222for convenience of the government due to a physical or mental condition, not a disability (A) with a service characterization of general...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01052

    Original file (ND02-01052.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Since reporting to ship 7 months ago has had increased dissatisfaction which has result in 5-6 fights off base and 1 physical fight with his girlfriend 2 months ago on leave. Mbr not currently suicidal/homicidal but presents a continuing risk/liability to harm self/others if returned on board ship& in the USN. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 881021 under honorable conditions (general) for convenience of the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00334

    Original file (ND01-00334.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I feel that given my history of medical problems, the reason I missed movement and the simple mistake in not turning the other card in, I should not be punished so severely and should not get General Under Honorable. Very respectfully, (Applicant) Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 9 pages from medical record Administrative Discharge Package (4 pages) PART II - SUMMARY OF...

  • 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 | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00916

    Original file (ND01-00916.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 970812 with an honorable for convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder of such severity as to render the applicant incapable of serving adequately in the naval service. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00729

    Original file (ND03-00729.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    “On behalf of the above referenced applicant, and in accordance with 32 C.F.R., section 724.166; SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 1.16, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the following informal comments; and/or issue(s). Evaluation done by Dr. N_ who recommended pt be administratively separated from the Navy. It is possible that due to her adjustment disorder or depressive disorder NOS triggered by occupational stress, that...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00988

    Original file (ND02-00988.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-FA, USN Docket No. In the acknowledgement letter to the Applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. 950708: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service authorized of general (under honorable conditions) by reason of...