Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600153
Original file (ND0600153.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
 DISCHARGE REVIEW
DECISIONAL DOCUMENT
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-SN, USN
Docket No. ND06-00153

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20051103 . 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 20060908 . After a thorough review of the available 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) for convenience of the government due to a physical or mental condition, not a disability.




PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“ DD214 shows “General (under Honorable Conditions)” #28 “Condition, Not A D isability”. By putting “General under Honorable” this is made me not eligible for use of my educational benefits (that I paid in $1200 and it was not returned.) I earned the right to go to school because I served my C ountry H onorably B ut had to leave due to medical reasons. the Navy said it was not a disability But the VA A warded S ervice C onnected D isability meaning it either was injury that was incurred while on active duty or was aggravated by the M ilitary. I am disabled-via the military there fore my DD214 should be changed to “Honorable” and reason for separation “Medical ”

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (member 4)
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (member 1)
Department of Veterans Affair Entitlement Decision, dtd August 4, 2005 (3 pgs)
 Department of Veterans Affair Rating Decision, dtd July 27, 2005 (4 pgs)
Department of Veterans Affair Entitlement Decision, dtd December 2, 2004 (3 pgs)
Department of Veterans Affair Rating Decision, dtd November 23, 2004 (4 pgs)
 34 pages from Applicant’s service and medical records

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     20010724 – 20010826               COG
          Active: None

Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 20010827              Date of Discharge: 20040921

Length of Service (years, months, days):

          Active: 0 3 00 25
         Inactive: None

 Time Lost During This Period (days):
         Unauthorized absence: none
         Confinement:              none

Age at Entry: 20

Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 49

Highest Rate: SN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3 .0 ( 3 )              Behavior: 2 . 3 ( 3 )                 OTA: 3 .0 5

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214): National Defense Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Expedit i onary Medal .


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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/CONDITION, NOT A DISABILITY, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-120 (formerly 3620200).
Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

020110:  Summary Court-Martial.
          Charge: violation of the UCMJ, Article 107: With intent to deceive, did make a false official statement.
          Finding: to Charge and the specification thereunder, guilty.
          Sentence: Forfeiture of $542.00 pay, confinement for 1 month (suspended for 90 days).
          CA action: Not found in record.
020201:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Article 107-False official statement.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.
0 30911 :  Medical evaluation by Branch Medical Clinic NAVSTA .
          Background: “...NJP’s, Page 11’s, Masts were denied. She did, however, report, disciplinary action after being raped at A school and was ultimately charge with false statement. She has, however, done her best to forget this, denied PTSD symptoms currently.... ”
Assessment:
 AXIS I: Adj/do with Mixed Anxiety and Depression, chronic; Learning disability NOS by hx
         AXIS II: Deferred, no significant traits noted
         AXIS III: Migraines
         AXIS: IV: occupational problem
         AXIS V: (current): low 50s
         AXIS V: (highest): 70s
          Pain: denied
 Plan s and Recommendation s :
 Safety: Low risk for harm to self or others at this time based on the above risk assessment. The patient is neither suicidal or homicidal and convincingly contracts for safety at this time. Crisis plans were reviewed and contact information was given.
 Medication: We discussed risks, benefits, and side effects of the below medications including alternatives and discontinuation procedures and the patient desired to proceed as follows (denied chance of pregnancy) . Wellbutrin SR 100mg PO QAM target depressive symptoms. While known increase in panic may occur, overall goal to decrease appetite and improve frustration tolerance is judged to be more beneficial to the patient at this time while hopefully increasing daytime energy and aide in reduction of appetite. Further, chronic concentration problems from learning disability may theoretically improved with dopaminergic activity of wellbutrin. May consider Effexor for same reasoning if panic persist or increases or prn coverage with Klonopin. D/C ETOH, D/C OTC supplements, D/C Caffeine. Education on importance of well-balanced diet, exercise, and routine sleep cycle stressed.
Therapy: With next available. Relaxation group target panic sx non-pharmacologically. Also refer to Anxiety group for same reason s .
Military: Fit and suitable for full duty at this time without restriction.
Follow-up: F/U FMH PRN in interim prior to appointment for therapy/group/medication management in 3-4 weeks. Pt agrees to go to ED or call 911 if thoughts of harm to self or others recur. The patient voiced understanding, agreement, and there is no evidence suggesting the patient has any impairment of capacity to do so. Labs today, LBL, P2, LFT, Rpr, UA, AUG, DDS.

040107:   Medical evaluation by Fleet Mental Health, Branch Medical Clinic NAVSTA, San Diego, CA.
          Assessment:
 AXIS I: Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressio
         AXIS II: Deferred, Dependent traits
         AXIS III: Migraines No pain reported
         AXIS: IV: Military life and occupational stressors
         AXIS V: GAF (current) 60’s
         Plan:
          1. Medications: per Dr. S_.
         2. Therapy: Brief outpatient psychotherapy and Relaxation Group.
         3. Military: limited duty for migraines (10/ 0 4)
         4. Follow-up: RTC as scheduled.

040128:  Medical evaluation by Fleet Mental Health, Branch Medical Clinic NAVSTA, San Diego, CA.
          Assessment:
 AXIS I: Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depression Bereavement (dx change)
          AXIS II: Deferred, Dependent traits
          AXIS III: Migraines No pain reported
          AXIS: IV: Military life and occupational stressors
          AXIS V: GAF (current) 60’s
          Plan:
         1. Medications: per Dr. S_. Patient may go to primary care for medication targeting sleep problem 2/2 to recent SIDS death of infant son.
         2. Therapy: Brief outpatient psychotherapy and Relaxation Group. Patient also referred to community support group for SIDS
         3. Military: limited duty for migraines (10/4)
         4. Follow-up: RTC as scheduled.

040225:  Medical evaluation by Fleet Mental Health, Branch Medical Clinic NAVSTA, San Diego, CA.
          Assessment:
 AXIS I: Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depression Bereavement (dx change)
          AXIS II: Deferred, Dependent traits
         AXIS III: Migraines No pain reported
         AXIS: IV: Military life and occupational stressors
         AXIS V: GAF (current): 60’s
         Plan:
         1. Medications: per Dr. S_. Patient may go to primary care for medication targeting sleep problem 2/2 to recent SIDS death of infant son.
         2. Therapy: Brief outpatient psychotherapy and Relaxation Group. Patient also referred to community support group for SIDS.
         3. Military: limited duty for migraines (10/4)
         4. Follow-up: RTC as scheduled.

0 40409:  Medical Board Evaluation, Naval Medical Center, San Diego: Board agrees with MIXED HEADACHES diagnosis and believes the Applicant has a condition that prevents her from performing her duties and refers Applicant’s case to the central physical evaluation board for adjudication.

040416:  Medical evaluation by Branch Medical Clinic NAVSTA.
          Assessment:
 AXIS I: Adj/do with Mixed Anxiety and Depression, chronic
Onset: DNEPTE
Industrial Impairment: minimal
Military Impairment: moderate
Bereavement, uncomplicated
Onset: DNEPTE
Industrial Impairment: minimal
Military Impairment: moderate
Learning Disability NOS by patient history, EPTS
          AXIS II: Deferred, no significant traits noted
         AXIS III: Migraines (primary medial board)
         AXIS: IV: occupational problem
         AXIS V: (current): low 50s, moderate symptoms and impairment in functioning
         AXIS V: (highest): 70s
         Pain: denied
 Plans and Recommendation:
 Safety: Low risk for harm to self or others at this time based on the above risk assessment. The patient is neither suicidal or homicidal and convincingly contracts for safety at this time. Crisis plans were reviewed and contact information was given.
Medication: We discussed risks, benefits, and side effects of the below medications including alternatives and discontinuation procedures and the patient desired to proceed as follows (denied chance of pregnancy).
Continue Zoloft 50mg PO daily and Wellbutrin SR 150mg PO BID as she is satisfied with regimen at this time despite ongoing symptoms.
Continue to D/C ETOH, D/C OTC supplements, D/C Caffeine. Education on importance of well-balanced diet, exercise, and routine sleep cycle stressed.
 Therapy: Continue with Dr H_ as arranged or individual supportive therapy, Bereavement Group as arranged weekly. Relaxation group target panic sx non-pharmacologically.
Military: Fit and suitable for full duty at this time without restriction.
Follow-up: F/U FMH PRN in interim prior to appointment for therapy/group/medication management in 3-4 weeks. Pt agrees to go to ED or call 911 if thoughts of harm to self or others recur. The patient voiced understanding, agreement, and there is no evidence suggesting the patient has any impairment of capacity to do so.

040503:  Medical evaluation by Fleet Mental Health, Branch Medical Clinic NAVSTA, San Diego, CA.
          Assessment:
 AXIS I: Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depression Bereavement (dx change)
          AXIS II: Deferred, Dependent traits
         AXIS III: Migraines 7/10 today
         AXIS: IV: Military life and occupational stressors
          AXIS V: GAF (current): 60’s
          Plan:
         1. Medications: per Dr. S_. Patient may go to primary care for medication targeting sleep problem 2/2 to recent SIDS death of infant son.
         2. Therapy: Bereavement Group, brief outpatient psychotherapy and Relaxation.
         3. Military: limited duty for migraines (10/4)
         4. Follow-up: RTC as scheduled.

040617:  Physical Evaluation Board , Naval Council of Personnel Boards, Washington D.C., found Applicant fit for continued active duty. [Document provided by Applicant]
         
040712:  Physical Evaluation Board , Naval Council of Personnel Boards, Washington D.C., reconsidered Applicant’s case and made no change to the preliminary finding ; f it for continued naval service.

040805:  Applicant found not fit for sea duty.

040825:  NAVPERS 1070/613 warning issued. [Extracted from CO’s l t r of 040915]
040915 :  Commanding Officer, Naval Base, San Diego , informed CNPC that the Applicant was being processed for separation by reason of convenience of the Government due to physical or mental conditions, not a disability, with a character of service as general (under honorable conditions). Commanding Officer’s comments : “SN C_’s (Applicant) medical condition renders her incapable of being worldwide assignable. Her medical condition impacts the safe, reliable, and proficient performance of her duties. ”

040921:  DD Form 214: Applicant discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) character of service by reason of condition , not a disability, authority MILPERSMAN 1910-120.


Service Record contains a partial Administrative Discharge package.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 20040921 for convenience of the government due to a physical or mental condition, not a disability (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).

The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs. The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue. In the Applicant’s case, in the absence of a complete discharge package and without credible and substantial evidence to refute the Board’s presumption, the Board invoked the presumption of regularity. Specifically, the Board presumed that the Applicant was properly notified of her Commanding Officer’s intent to administratively process the Applicant for separation and that the Applicant was afforded all rights which she elected at notification.

The Applicant contends that she is “disabled-via the military” and therefore her discharge should be changed to honorable. The Board could find no connection between the Applicant’s medical condition, narrative reason for separation or Veterans’ Administration assessment of disability and the Applicant’s character of service. 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 when significant negative aspects of a member’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member’s military record. The Applicant’s service was marred by a retention warning and a Summary Court-Martial conviction for violation of Article 107 of the UCMJ. The Applicant’s violation of Article 107 of the UCMJ is the commission of a serious offense. The Applicant also received a retention warning on 20040825. 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 and falls short of that required for an upgrade of her characterization of service. Relief is not warranted.

The Applicant implies that her discharge should be changed to honorable in order to be eligible for educational benefits. The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Naval Discharge Review Board. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veterans' benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. Relief denied.

The Applicant states that her narrative reason for separation should be changed to “Medical” because she is “disabled-via the military.” The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant's discharge, will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted. Reference (A) indicates that members with physical or behavioral conditions which impair a member’s service, but do not amount to a physical disability meet the criteria for separation by reason of condition not a disability. 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. No other Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describe why the Applicant was discharged. Relief denied.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant. Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have occurred during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question. The Board discovered no impropriety after a review of Applicant’s case. 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 should 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. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any relevant post-service documentation for the Board to consider. 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. 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 22 Sep 2004, 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, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs .

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

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130004766

    Original file (20130004766.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He also reported problems with sleeping and difficulty concentrating. On 20 April 2010, he attended a PTSD therapy session where a licensed clinical social worker stated he had PTSD and follow-on diagnoses clearly showed the applicant had Axis I PTSD and MDD. The applicant and counsel believe he should have received a medical retirement for his various medical conditions due to being granted a VA disability rating for his service-connected conditions.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500896

    Original file (ND0500896.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DISCHARGE MEDICATIONS: None DISCHARGE INSTRUCTIONS: 1. She was discharged on no medications. She adamantly denied then and denies now any thoughts of suicide at the time – she was just “pissed.” Her mood was relatively stable until last weekend when she had an “up” episode that lasted from Thursday to Monday.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00742

    Original file (ND04-00742.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Plan: Patient will follow-up with LT B_. Plan: Recommended administrative separation by reason of Convenience of the Government due to a mental conditions (Adjustment Disorder) not constituting a physical disability per DOD Instruction 1332.38 and MILPERSMAN 1910-120.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05703-00

    Original file (05703-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    e. SF 600, Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 30 July 97, Mental Health Department, Naval Hospital Oak Harbor, documenting on Axis I: Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood, Dysthymia, and on Axis II: Dependent and Avoidant Traits 3. Review of the service record revealed: entered the service on 18 August 94 in Portland, Oregon. There is no evidence of a mental illness present at the time of separation that rendered the service member disabled or unlit for increased risk of suicide...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600001

    Original file (ND0600001.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00001 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050920. Documentation In addition to the service and medical records, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 1 and 4) Evaluation Report and Counseling Record, dtd April 5, 2005 E-mail from NAS PENSACOLA, dtd March 29, 2005 Thirteen pages from Applicant’s service record Four hundred and seventy-five pages from Applicant’s medical...

  • 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 | 2006_Navy | ND0600120

    Original file (ND0600120.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00120 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20051026. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 050118: Medical Officer USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) determined Applicant qualified for separation from active duty.050121: DD Form 214: Applicant discharged general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government-personality disorder.Service Record did not...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501370

    Original file (ND0501370.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    LEGAL STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO DISCHARGE CHARACTERIZATION EMFN M_(applicant) was discharged on June 17, 1999 with a General Discharge based on Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN) section 1910-142, Misconduct, Commission Serious Offense.A review of MILPERSMAN 1910-142 indicates that a member may be separated based commission of a serious military or civilian offense only when: AXIS V: 80 Recommendation: (1) Patient is fit for duty, however recommend no deployment at present. PART III –...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130004442

    Original file (20130004442.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    During her examination she reported that she had experienced these headaches off and on more than 10 years, since she was 12-years old. At the time, her record showed that she had a history of migraine headaches for which she was prescribed medication. The MEB NARSUM notes that the applicant reported that despite the medications and duty limitations, she experienced migraine headaches that were prostrating in nature for 3 to 4 hours twice a month that required quarters.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-01297

    Original file (PD2010-01297.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Using the PEB coding for impairment of the tibia and fibula, the degree of limitation of active knee ROM documented at the service physical therapy exam and VA exam meets the criteria for mild to moderate knee disability and would rate 10%-20%. The social and occupational impact of impairment due to symptoms of insomnia and depressive disorder was already discussed and included in the rating recommendation for the CI’s unfitting cognitive dysfunction condition. The Board therefore has...