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

  

 ex-AGC, USN
Docket No. ND99-00901

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 990622, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to convenience of the government.  The applicant requested 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 000406.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall change.  The discharge shall change: HONORABLE / SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 164 (formerly 3630900).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.	My discharge was based on adverse side effects I was having to medications prescribed by urology at Balboa Medical Hospital in San Diego for my chronic illness.  I had a very successful naval career before my illness progressed to the point the pain and discomfort became intolerable.  
2.	I have received numerous letters of commendation and recommendation throughout my career.  I earned three good conduct medals, 2 Navy Achievement medals and was selected to become a limited duty officer.
3.	My administrative discharge was the result of my well-documented chronic illness Interstitial Cystitis which I have suffered with since 1987 while stationed in Guam.  My illness was overlooked and downplayed as a “hysterical female condition”.  This illness has caused me severe physical and mental anguish not to mention the lost relationships.  It is extremely embarrassing to talk about and for several years I just suffered in silence.  There is no cure for this rare disease and many of the treatments are extremely painful including bladder surgery which I had while stationed in Guam in 1988, unfortunately the surgery made my symptoms worse and as the years went by my condition became more and more painful.  Please see Document #1 enclosures on the disease “Interstitial Cystitis”.
4.	In 1997 the pain was so severe and I was constantly going to sick call I requested a medical discharge this request was initially denied because I had not exhausted all various treatments for IC even though I had already under gone surgery for the same condition while stationed in Guam.  I then requested to go to a drug free pain clinic in August 1997 this was also denied because of non-availability of acupuncture or biofeedback treatment at Balboa Hospital San Diego.  I then requested a non-availability statement from Dr. R---- he refused saying all such requests he had done in the past had come back denied.  I felt my only option at this point was prescription medication which was also the beginning of the end of my career.  Please see Document #2 enclosures from my naval record.
5.	The prescribed medications I was on included Prozac which was prescribed for pain and caused such severe reactions I was placed on Zoloft and valium for bladder spasms, Ambien for sleep, pyridium an analgesic for bladder pain, and various antibiotics for chronic bladder infections.  The medications caused all kinds of problems and I should not have been going to work or driving but a lot of the changes in my behavior I could not see, all I felt was that the pain was not as intense and that was all I cared about.  I experienced amnesia, insomnia, nervousness, I was late for work, in a car crash, I missed appointments and could not hold a train of thought.  I was accused of making false official statements because I could not remember what days I did what.  I was accused of being a drug addict and alcoholic even though I do not drink and do not do recreational drugs-the substance abuse charges were dropped at the administrative board.
6.	My illness does not gather much sympathy because its rare, because its thought to be just a female disease and because on the outside a person looks fine.  My illness plus the prescription drugs are what caused my erratic behavior and that is what ended my very successful 12 year Navy career.  I do not blame anybody there is no way I could have continued working in the condition I was in, I do feel I should have been allowed the option of going to a drug free pain clinic or a medical discharge before it was to late.  I was a 4.0 model sailor for over 10 of those 12 years.  I was selected to become a Limited Duty Officer, I was also the American Red Cross volunteer of the year.  I strongly feel my illness is of no fault of my own and that I deserve a honorable discharge.  Please see Document #3 Letters of Recommendation.   

Documentation

In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:

Copy of DD Form 214.
Copy of DD 214 from enlistment 860311 to 891215
Medical Documentation on Interstitial Cystits (17 pages)
Documentation from Naval Medical Record (16 pages)
Letters of Recommendation from Capt R___ C___ dated 15 April 1999
Application for Active Duty Limited Duty Officer Program (11 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USN 			860311 – 931214	HON
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	000000 - 000000	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  931215  		Date of Discharge:  980708

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    04 06 24
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  32			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  65

Highest Rate:  AGC

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance: 2.5 (4)		Behavior:  2.25 (4)		OTA:  2.38 on a 4.0 scale
		4.0 (on a 4.0 scale)	       4.0 (on a 4.0 scale)	4.0 on a 4.0 scale

Military Decorations:  NAM (2), GCM(3)

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:   M-14 RMR, OSR(3), MUC, NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  0

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

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL) /MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

970317:	Counseling:  Advised of deficiency (substandard performance and alcohol related incident while in uniform), notified of corrective actions and assistance available.

970331:	Applicant received a Letter of Instruction for substandard performance while assigned to provide meteorological support for SEAL Team Five.

980506:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (3 Specs):  
Unauthorized absence; violation of UCMJ Article 107: False official statement; violation of UCMJ Article 112a: Wrongful use of a controlled substance (butalbital)
	Award:  Forfeiture of $1069.30 per month for 2 months (suspended for six months) restriction and extra duty for 45 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

980424:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

980701:	An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed a serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general).  The board, by a vote of 2 to 1, found that the applicant did not commit misconduct – drug abuse.

980708:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.  Commanding officer’s comments: “AGC D____ experienced profound medical and personal problems over the last two years.  I have no doubt that these issues caused the gross and well-documented decline in her professional performance, which heretofore had been superb.  Yet she was given extensive medical assistance for interstitial cystitis, in depth substance abuse counseling, and every opportunity to deal with her son’s substance abuse problem.  Her “last chance” took the form of a letter of instruction.  A subsequent serious lapse caused me to rescind her recommendation for promotion and withdraw her command duty officer qualification.  Further misconduct resulted in non-judicial punishment and the administrative boards.  Immediately following her board, I learned that she had committed several more infractions while in restricted status  including fraternization, driving a vehicle off base, smoking in her barracks room , and improper grooming standards.
		I fully support the findings and recommendations of AGC D____’s Administrative Separation board detailed in enclosure (1).  I agree that the preponderance of evidence indicates that she did make false official statement and therefore committed a serious offense worthy of administrative separation under a general discharge.  I respect and uphold the board’s findings that the preponderance of evidence did not prove misconduct – drug abuse.  However, I personally disagree with that ruling.  Otherwise I would not have found her guilty of drug abuse at Captain’s Mast.  
		In summary, AGC D___’s performance during the last 24 months has been unsatisfactory.  She has been given enough opportunity to correct her deficiencies, but has shown no improvement.  Her total disregard for orders and regulations is unacceptable and not in line with good order and discipline in the United States Navy.  AGC D___ has no potential for Naval Service”.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 980708 under honorable conditions (general) for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B).  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper but not equitable (C and D).

After reviewing the applicant’s service record and medical record, the Board determined that the applicant’s ability to serve was severely hampered due to the applicant’s medical condition and her subsequent prescription drug use.  Specifically, the Board felt that there was substantial evidence that the applicant was not capable of using sound judgement and reason surrounding the events for which she was discharged due to her prescription medicine.  Therefore, the applicant’s discharge will be upgraded to Honorable and the reason changed to Secretarial Authority.  While the applicant has been granted all the relief the NDRB has to offer, she is encouraged to present her case to the Board of Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) for any possible further relief.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)
A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 
12 Dec 97 until Present, Article 1910-142  [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT- COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.  

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

D.	Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.

E.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 12 Dec 97 until Present, Article 1910-164 [formerly 3630900].  SEPARATION BY REASON OF BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE (BIOTS).

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 obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to:

		DA Military Review Boards Agency
		Management Information and Support Directorate
		Armed Forces Reading Room
		Washington, D.C.  20310-1809

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:

		Naval Council of Personnel Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		Washington Navy Yard
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington, D.C.  20374-5023