Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902001
Original file (ND0902001.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-ET3, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20090707
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to:
                  Narrative Reason change to:

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive:         US N R (DEP)        2 0010619 - 20010927     Active:  
Inactive:        USNR (DEP)       20070517 - 20070716

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Current Enlistment: 20070717     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20080725      Highest Rank/Rate: ET3
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 08 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 89
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: None        Behavior: 2.0 ( 1 )        OTA: 2.0

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Pistol

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP : S CM : SPCM:

C C :

Retention Warning Counseling:

- 2008061 9 :      Regarding being diagnosed with adjustment disorder with depressed mood , recommend seek assistance.

- 20080402 :      Regarding being diagnosed with adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood, recommend seek assistance.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

 Related to Military Service:     
DD 214:                   Service/ Medical Record:            Other Records:   

Related to Post-Service Period:  
         Employment:               Finances:                 Education /Training :     
         Health/Medical Records:           Substance Abuse:                  Criminal Records:       
         Family/Personal Status:           Community Service:                References:     
Additional Statements :
 From Applicant:                  From /To Representat ion :            From /To Congress m ember :         

Oth er Documentation :   



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Catalyst for discharge proceedings was an unsubstantiated allegation of suicidal tendencies.
2. Characterization of service “ General ( Under Honorable Conditions ) ” is unfounded and contradicts her performance.
 3. Characterization of service was unfair and unwa rranted per MILPERSMAN 1910-120 & 304.

Decision

Date: 20 10 0225         Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .
Discussion

 The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted. In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of g overnment al affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. The Applicant’s record of service did not include any misconduct that resulted in nonjudicial punishment or court-martial. In the clinical psychologist’s (Naval Branch Health Clinic, Pensacola) letter dated 9 June 2008, he recommended separation based on the Applicant’s diagnosis of adjustment disorder with depressed mood. The Applicant was reevaluated after thirty days and her diagnosis remained unchanged. Based on the psychologist’s recommendation, her command administratively processed her for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant waived her rights to consult with a qualified coun sel, submit a written statement and request a General Court-Martial Convening Authority (GCMA) review.

Issue 1 : (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends the catalyst for her discharge proceedings was an unsubstantiated allegation of suicidal tendencies. While the Applicant may feel the catalyst for her discharge was unsubstantiated, the NDRB opines that it did not affect her diagnosis. The Chronological Record of Medical Care (CRMC) report dated 8 April 2008 stated the Applicant had been diagnosed with adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood while she was stationed in Great Lakes, and in the CRMC report of 9 June 2008, it stated, “She was seen three times by Mental Health at that time and recommended for administrative separation due to Adjustment Disorder with Depressed mood and threats of harming herself if not discharged.” The NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) Administrative Remarks stated the Applicant was suitable for operational duty on 21 April 2008, and the Page 13 of 10 May 2008 , stated the Applicant had participated in the recruiting assistance leave program in Elizabethtown, KY, from 6 to 10 May 2008. The Applicant was given orders to the Naval Air Technical Training Center (NATTC), Pensacola, FL, and reported on 17 May 2008. While at NATTC, the member was under multiple stressors: was a newlywed, learned she was pregnant in late May 2008, learned of her husband’s (also a Sailor) orders to a ship in San Diego, CA, lacked a family care plan, learned that her father-in-law’s cancer had returned, and concerned with her impending separation from the Navy and facing unemployment with a new child. The CRMC report, dated 9 June 2008, stated the reason for the appointment was “depressed” and not suicidal ideations. Further in the report, it stated, “Suicidal ideation/plan: No Current thoughts, member denied SI but according to medical records, did voice SI in “A” school if not discharged.” The doctor diagnosed her with adjustment disorder with depressed mood and occupational problem. In a follow-up visit to the clinic on 17 June 2008, the doctor stated, “Member convincingly denies any thoughts of self-harm or thoughts of harm to others ” a nd her diagnosis was the same as the 9 June diagnosis. Several follow-up visits to the clinic reconfirmed her diagnosis. Based on her multiple medical diagnoses, the NDRB determined the Applicant met the requirements for separation by reason of convenience of the government – physical or mental conditions.

Issue s 2 -3 : (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends her c haracterization of service , General “Under Honorable Conditions ” , is unfounded and contradicts her performance , and that her characterization of service was unfair and unwarranted per MILPERSMAN 1910-120 & 304 . In the Applicant’s letter to her Congressman of 30 July 2009, she stated, “I continued to strive academically and completed ET “A” school with an average above 90%...” She also stated, “I maintained my military bearing” (while attending “C” school in Pensacola). In the CRMC report of 9 June 2008, it stated, “She intentionally failed several examinations in “A” [school]”; “reported significant academic and emotional problems in Electronics Technician “A” school.” and “described her current inability to tolerate “C” School and feels trapped by her enlistment contract.” In the CRMC reports of 17 June 2008, 30 June 2008, and 17 July 2008, all mention the “Service member is not motivated to remain on active duty.” On her CRMC report of 30 June 2008, the doctor stated, “ She has been recommended for administrative separation. She reported excessive need for sleep and significant problems with acid reflux. She reported still feeling depressed but feels more optimistic.” The Applicant signed her notif icati on of administrative separation processing on 7 July 2008. On her CRMC report of 17 July 2008, the doctor stated , “She is optimistic and denied current stress. ”

For separation due to condition not a disability, the characterization is Honorable unless an Uncharacterized or General (Under Honorable Conditions) is warranted. The Applicant served more than 180 days and was not eligible for an Uncharacterized discharge. While a student at the Naval Air Technical Training Center, the Applicant was given a 2.0 rating in blocks 36 (military bearing/character) and 37 (personal job accomplishment/initiative) on her final evaluation report. T he commanding officer did not explain the low marks and there was no evidence of misconduct by the Applicant. Based on her medical records, the NDRB opined that she wanted to leave the Navy, which is contrary to what she wrote to her Congressman (“I do not believe I should have be en discharged to begin with…”). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstance s unique to this case, the NDRB, by a majority vote, discerned no impropriety in the discharge action or an inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service. B y unanimous vote, the awarded narra tive reason for the discharge shall remain as issued.
Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s s ummary of s ervice, medical and r ecord e ntries, and d ischarge p rocess, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain CONDITION NOT A DISABILITY .

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of her discharge. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically the paragraphs titled Additional Reviews, Automatic Upgrades, and Post-Service Conduct .

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), effective 25 May 2005 until Present, Article 1910-120, 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 II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs , Part V, Para 502, Propriety and Para 503, Equity .


ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant

 Complaint Procedures : If you believe 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 Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Instruction to the Joint Service Review Activity, OUSD (P&R) PI-LP, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Instruction 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 Instruction 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “ http://Boards.law.af.mil . ”

Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s date of discharge. The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any additional evidence related to this discharge. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required. There are veterans organizations such as the American Legion and the Disabled American Veterans that are willing to provide guidance to former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted their opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100 for further review.

 Service Benefits: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB. 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.
Employment/Educational Opportunities : The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.

 Reenlistment/RE-code: Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, the NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code. Only the BCNR can make changes to reenlistment codes. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. An unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment. A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.
Medical Conditions and Misconduct : DoD disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation. Appropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons. Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board, and is processed subsequently for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings. If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct or for any basis wherein an Other Than Honorable discharge is authorized, the medical board report is filed in the member’s terminated health record. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or other medical related reasons. Only the BCNR can grant this type of narrative reason change.

 Automatic Upgrades - There is no law or regulation that provides for an unfavorable discharge to be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct subsequent to leaving naval service.

Post-Service Conduct : The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. Outstanding post-service conduct, 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, is considered during Board reviews. Documentation to support a post-service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s birth certificates (if applicable); character witness statements; documentation of community or church service; certification of non-involvement with civil authorities; evidence of financial stability or letters of good standing from banks, credit card companies, or other financial institutions; attendance at or completion of higher education (official transcripts); and documentation of a drug-free lifestyle. The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

Issues Concerning Bad-Conduct Discharges (BCD ): Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts, issues relating to the Applicant’s innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a special court-martial, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency. Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed. The NDRB does not have the jurisdictional authority to review a discharge or dismissal resulting from a general court-martial.

Board Membership: The names and votes of the members of the NDRB 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 | ND0600148

    Original file (ND0600148.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Issues, as stated Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application and/or attached document/letter: “ Dear NDRB,The following issues are the reasons I believe my discharge should be upgraded to Honorable and the reenlistment code be changed to RE-1 with corresponding Separation Program Number/designator. If I was considered such...

  • 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 | ND02-00824

    Original file (ND02-00824.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00824 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020520, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Relief is therefore denied and, as the Applicant's Commanding Officer did in fact order an uncharacterized discharge to be issued, the Board will direct the character of discharge on the Applicant's DD Form 214 to be corrected from general (under honorable conditions) to uncharacterized. The Applicant is advised that...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700673

    Original file (ND0700673.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Recommendation: Continue support.19960911: Medical Record: Reason for visit: Coping skills group. Diagnosis: Not currently suicidal. 20000214: Medical Record: Reason for visit: Follow up psychology clinic, reports feeling better since starting Prozac.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00459

    Original file (ND99-00459.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-SR, USN Docket No. Age at Entry: 19 Years Contracted: 4 Education Level: 12 AFQT: 36 Highest Rate: SR Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks): Performance: 2.00 (1) Behavior: 2.90 (2) OTA: 2.80 Military Decorations: None Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None Days of Unauthorized Absence: 2 Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):UNDER...

  • CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2011-027

    Original file (2011-027.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ALLEGATIONS The applicant, who was represented by a civilian attorney, wrote that the Formal Physical Disability Evaluation Board (FPEB)1 recommended that the applicant be permanently retired from the Coast Guard with a 30% disability rating for major depressive disorder under the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) 2 code 9434 and a 0% rating for 1 The FPEB is a fact finding body (in the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES)) that holds an administrative hearing...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01418

    Original file (PD-2014-01418.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The CI’s chronic bilateral foot pain, chronic low back pain (LBP), plantar fasciitis and pes planus conditions were forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501. The IPEB did not address the remaining conditions (plantar fasciitis, pes planus and adjustment disorder).The CI appealed to the Formal PEB (FPEB) which reaffirmed the IPEB’s findings for the chronic low back condition as unfitting, rated at 10%, but changed the chronic foot pain (bilateral) diagnosis to bilateral...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01598

    Original file (PD-2014-01598.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    SEPARATION DATE: 20081107 The CI was also diagnosed with an adjustment disorder and a personality disorder that the PEB “found to be not compensable, although they may be administratively unfitting.” This case is eligible for review under the stipulations of the MH and Review Program as elaborated in the Scope above and, in accordance with VASRD 4.130 (mental disorders), only one disability rating may be provided for MH (except eating disorders) based upon total social and occupational...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01782

    Original file (PD2012 01782.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Any conditions or contention not requested in this application, or otherwise outside the Board’s defined scope of review, remain eligible for future consideration by the Board for Correction of Military Records. The diagnosis was the same as at the MEB exam with the C&P examiner noting “GAF of 45- “indicating major symptoms of depression along with evidence of impairment of reality with visual hallucinations and problems with sleep and concentration, which would interfere with her ability...

  • 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...