Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1401682
Original file (ND1401682.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-FR, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20140912
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

Applicant’s Request:     Characterization change to:     
         Narrative Reason change to:      ENTRY LEVEL SEPARATION

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:        USNR (DEP)       20100204 - 20100426     Active: 

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Current Enlistment: 20100427    Age at Enlistment:
Period of Enlistment: Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20100617     Highest Rank/Rate: FR
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 21 Day(s)
Education Level:        AFQT: 64
Evaluation Marks:        Performance: NONE

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):     NONE

Periods of UA/CONF:

NJP:     SCM:     SPCM:    CC:

Retention Warning Counseling:

- 20100517:      For inappropriate behavior, substandard performance, and unprofessional conduct while in a trainee status.

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:           Rehabilitation/Treatment:                 Criminal Records:       
         Personal Documentation:           Community Service:                References:     
         Department of VA letter:                  Other Documentation:    
                  Additional Statements:
         From Applicant:           From/To Representation:           From/To Congress member:        








Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 29, effective 10 November 2009 until Present, Article 1910-154, SEPARATION BY REASON OF ENTRY LEVEL PERFORMANCE AND CONDUCT.

B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part IV, Para 403m(7)(b), Presumption Concerning Court-Martial Specifications.


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

Applicant’s Issues

1.       The Applicant contends that she could not hear the instructions given to her at boot camp, leading to her inability to follow those instructions.
2.       The Applicant contends that hypoglycemia is the reason for her misconduct at boot camp.

Decision

Date: 20141216            Location: Washington D.C.        Representation:

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 governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. The Board completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the Applicant’s discharge and the discharge process to ensure discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.
The Applicant’s record of service included NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warning. Based on the offense(s) committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant exercised rights to consult with a qualified counsel, and submit a written statement. Due to the Applicant’s length of service, and the characterization of her discharge, she was not eligible for an administrative board.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends that she could not hear the instructions given to her at boot camp, leading to her inability to follow instructions. The NDRB assumes regularity in the conduct of government affairs. It is up to the Applicant to present proof that rebuts that presumption. The Applicant submitted medical documents from an audiogram performed on 30 April 2010. The test shows mild sensorineural hearing loss in the left ear. However, the degree of hearing loss shown on the Applicant’s audiogram was not significant enough that it would prevent her from being able to hear normal conversations. The NDRB determined that the degree of hearing loss that the audiogram shows should not have caused the Applicant any difficulty hearing or understanding instructions. Further, the Applicant submitted a lengthy statement to the Separating Authority as to why she thought she should be retained in the Naval Service. Nowhere in her statement does she refer to difficulty in hearing her instructors. The NDRB determined that the issue was without merit. Relief Denied.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends that hypoglycemia is the reason for her misconduct at boot camp. The Applicant submits medical records from April 28, 2010 showing that she was hypoglycemic. While chronic hypoglycemia is a reason why someone may not perform as expected in boot camp, acute hypoglycemia is not. The medical record states that the Applicant had not eaten all day before the test. Fasting before a blood sugar test is something that is expected to show low blood sugar levels. Additionally, the record shows that the Applicant refused to eat when instructed to do so, and her leadership believed that she may suffer from an eating disorder. All of these may be expected to cause a low blood sugar condition. If the Applicant had submitted proof of a chronic hypoglycemic condition, she would likely have not qualified for enlistment in the Navy. 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 remain UNCHARACTERIZED and the narrative reason for separation shall remain ENTRY LEVEL PERFORMANCE AND CONDUCT. The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of discharge. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum for additional information.


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), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 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

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00783

    Original file (PD2011-00783.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB and VA both rated the diabetes condition under VASRD code 7913, diabetes mellitus, but at different ratings. There was no evidence in the service treatment records that indicated medical restriction of normal activities including athletic was required. The PEB and VA both rated the condition 0% code 6200, chronic right mastoiditis.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001558

    Original file (20150001558.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Army Regulation 135-178 (Army National Guard and Army Reserve Enlisted Administrative Separations), in effect at the time, stated in paragraph 12-1 (Medically Unfit for Retention), Reserve enlisted soldiers who were no longer qualified for retention by reason of medical unfitness under the standards of Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3, would be discharged unless they are granted a waiver of the medical disqualification or were eligible and requested transfer to the Retired Reserve under...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-01445

    Original file (PD2012-01445.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The CI was then medically separated with a 20% disability rating. CI CONTENTION: “The 20% rating does not fit the disability, Type I Diabetes with controlled diet, restricted activities, and insulin dependent starts at the 40% rating. 3 PD1201445 RECOMMENDATION: The Board recommends that the CI’s prior determination be modified as follows; and, that the discharge with severance pay be recharacterized to reflect permanent disability retirement, effective as of the date of his prior medical...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00736

    Original file (PD2012-00736.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I have to take shots 4 times a day, strenuous activities cause me to have periods of hypoglycemia at work and during various activities outside of work. The PEB rated the CI’s Type 1 DM, requiring Insulin and restricted diet coded 7913 DM at 20%. The CI contended that he requires regulation of activity in order to control his DM.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02326

    Original file (PD-2013-02326.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He denied hospitalization for diabetes or diabetic complications and had a full-time job.At a C&P exam on 13 June 2007(14 months after TDRL placement) the CI reported that if “he runs or does any type of activities he will have hypoglycemia.” He therefore restricted his activities. The Board directs attention to its rating recommendationbased on the above evidence.Both at the time of placement on the TDRL and at the time of permanent disability disposition and removal from the TDRL, the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | bc-2011-04080

    Original file (bc-2011-04080.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    In view of the DVA rating decisions and the severity of her condition, the disability rating awarded by the Air Force should have been higher and she should have been retired by reason of physical disability. 60 percent – Requiring insulin, restricted diet, and regulation of activities with episodes of ketoacidosis or hypoglycemic reactions requiring one or two hospitalizations per year or twice a month visits to a diabetic care provider, plus complications that would not be compensable if...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00376

    Original file (PD2009-00376.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    With initiation of insulin treatment, the CI's blood sugar levels were 90's to 160's with no episodes of hypoglycemia, as per medical record documentation immediately prior to placement on TDRL. The Board also considered the condition of Bilateral Lower Extremity Peripheral Neuropathy at the CI’s request. When determining the final and permanent disability rating, the Board must evaluate the CI’s condition at the time of separation from the TDRL in 2008.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD 2014 01466

    Original file (PD 2014 01466.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    SEPARATION DATE: 20090426 The CI was still taking oral medications only (no injected insulin) and had undergone surgery in March 2008 (Abdominoplasty) with continued high blood sugar levels (glucose 262 with normal 74-106) and high Glycosolated hemoglobin levels (A1C 9.5 with normal 4.2-7.0). I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00227

    Original file (PD2013 00227.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    SEPARATION DATE: 20031216 The eye and neurological evaluations were normal.The Board directs attention to its rating recommendationbased on the above evidence.The PEB and VA both coded the condition as 7913, DM, and rated it at 20% for the use of Insulin without regulation of activities. RECOMMENDATION : The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no re-characterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00474

    Original file (PD2011-00474.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB adjudicated the diabetes condition as unfitting, rated 20% with application of the DoDI 1332.39 and Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). CI CONTENTION : “Disability was rated based on being Type II Diabetic. At the time of the MEB narrative summary (NARSUM), dated 12 February 2002, she was doing well and the examination was normal.