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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-ADAN, USN 
Docket No. ND05-00794

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050413. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to “convenience of gov”. 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 20050819. 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 unanimous that the character and reason for discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/CONDITION, NOT A DISABILITY, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-120.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“The discharge is improper because the Applicant did not/does not possess the condition for which she was discharged.  At no time before during service did Applicant receive treatment for said condition.  There are no documents in Applicants medical record to support governments recommendation for discharge.”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214
Letter from Commanding Officer, Naval Hospital, Pensacola, dated April 2, 2004
Seven pages of Applicant’s medical record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	020730 - 030706	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  030707		Date of Discharge:  040428

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  09  22
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 (24 month extension)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  56

Highest Rate:  ADAN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NOB			Behavior:  2.00 (1)		OTA:  2.00

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  National Defense Service Medal

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:

040330:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: (2 specs): Failure to obey order or regulation, violation of UCMJ, Article 112: Drunk on duty.
	Dates of offenses: 040317 and 040329.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $328 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 14 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

040402:	Medical Evaluation: Clinical impression is: Chronic patellofemoral syndrome.

040415:	Applicant counseled concerning alcohol/substance abuse and refused treatment.

040415:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government due physical or mental conditions and misconduct due to commission of serious offense.

040415:	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.

040422:	Commanding Officer, Naval Air Technical Training Center, Pensacola, FL directed the Applicant's discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government due to a physical or mental condition, not a disability.

040428:	Commanding Officer 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 and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.  Commanding Officer’s comments: ADAA B_ (Applicant) received nonjudicial punishment for failure to obey lawful orders and regulations and for being drunk on duty.  She was diagnosed by medical authorities as having a chronic petellofemoral syndrome (non-disability). This physical condition renders her incapable of serving adequately in the naval service.  She will most likely become and increasing administrative burden to this command with deteriorating performance.  In my opinion, she has no potential for future useful naval service; therefore, I have directed that she be separated from the naval service with the type of discharge warranted by service record by reason of Convenience of the Government.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW
Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20040428 with a general (under honorable conditions) for convenience of the government due to a physical or mental condition, not a disability. (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 and equitable (C and D).

The Applicant contends the discharge is improper because she does not possess Chronic Patellofemoral Syndrome, she did not receive treatment for the condition on active duty, and there are no documents to support the government’s recommendation for discharge. The documentation and statements provided by the Applicant did not refute the presumption of regularity in this case. The NDRB found the Applicant’s medical record to be incomplete. While the record does not mention Patellofemoral Syndrome, a letter dated 20040402 from the Commanding officer, Naval Hospital, Pensacola stated that the Applicant was seen on numerous occasions by competent medical authorities at the Pensacola Naval Hospital and the Naval Air Technical Training Center (NATTC) Branch Medical Clinic, Pensacola, FL, from 20031204-20040402. Based on those visits, the clinical impression was Chronic Patellofemoral Syndrome (non-disability), and the recommendation was to expeditiously separate the Applicant for the convenience of the government. On 20040415, the Applicant was notified of intended recommendation for discharge, advised of her rights, elected not to consult with qualified counsel, and waived all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation. The NDRB advises the Applicant that a medical evaluation from a civilian medical facility (20050215) does not invalidate an earlier diagnosis received while on active duty. Relief not warranted.
The NDRB further advises the Applicant that she was dual processed for administrative separation. In addition to a physical condition (non-disability), the Applicant was processed for misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. The Applicant’s contention about the implied incorrect diagnosis and the lack of medical treatment provided to her are of an insufficient nature to exculpate the Applicant’s misconduct.  In fact, the NDRB sees no connection between the Applicant’s misconduct and her medical condition. 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 one NJP on 20040330 for:

•	Violations of UCMJ, Article 92: (2 specs): Failure to obey order or regulation:
o	(Spec 1): wrongfully consuming and possessing alcoholic beverages while under the legal drinking age (040317)
o	(Spec 2): Failing to stand a proper watch, by watching movies on her      laptop (040317)
•	Violation of UCMJ, Article 112: Drunk on duty. (040317)
Violations of Articles 92 and 112 are considered serious offenses and typically warrant a punitive discharge if adjudged at a special or general court-martial. The Applicant’s conduct reflects her willful failure to meet the requirements of her contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of her characterization of service. Relief is not warranted.

 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 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), 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 II, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity.

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