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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

   ex-DR, USN
Docket No. ND05-01468

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050907.  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 20060524.  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 of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the attached document/letter:

“Respectfully request to change my GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) to HONORABLE conditions.  Correct my DD Form 214 (15A) to reflect my MGIB DD 2366 of contributing to the Montgomery GI Bill Act of 1984.  Obtain proper signatures (Licensed Dentist’s) on State of Oregon Dental Documentation (Verification of Competence in Expanded Functions, General & Orthodontic), reflecting my two years experience in Dental.  (I have requested this from Master Chief at JAX Dental and Dental Officer Dr.  Freedman now of Atlanta, GA and have been denied due to not being active duty and/or to long for them to remember).  Oregon requires this to work as a Dental Assistant, Expanded Functions.  I have the Knowledge, Skills and Abilities for this, gained from two years Dental in the NAVY verifiable by JAX Dental Documents and Patient Records.  (att. is OAR definitions)

Attached are copies of; DD FORM 214, DD FORM 553, DD 2366, and State of Oregon Dental forms.  I have put these forms in with my request because it is part of why I believe that I deserve HONORABLE DISCHARGE, and/or outstanding issues in regards to the discharge.

During my 4 years of enlistment, I received a Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, Armed
Forces Expeditionary Medal, National Defense Service Medal, and the Good Conduct
Medal (29AUG2003).  I served during 11 Sep2001 on the USS Arctic AOE8, USS Enterprise
Battle Group.  I did numerous extra volunteer duties at each station I served.  Including events
in Dental assisting with Special Olympics with Special Needs Children.

I married a Navy coworker from the USS ARCTIC that is now the USNS ARCTIC in June 2002.  Immediately went to Dental Tech school on the Air Force Base in Wichita Falls Texas.  After graduation I got orders to a nearby base in Florida by my husband.  After getting there I realized he had not even looked for a place to live and was living with a higher ranking officer.  That was the starting of the problems.  His abusive tendencies were exposed and accelerated from this point forward.  We moved into an apartment, later I purchased a house in Florida were we were stationed.

Issues arising in the marriage landed me into Medical numerous times due to extreme ulcer type pain and bruises, the Chaplin’s office in emotional states, in JAG seeking legal assistance, all futile attempts to resolve the issues at home and at work.  Later was sent to the psychiatry floor due to conversations with the Chaplin and higher Ranking co-workers.  I was given negative feedback from command due to pursuing psychiatrist counsel.

My husband was released from the Navy under HONORABLE even though he had been sent to DRB three times and was noted by higher ranking officers as a trouble maker.  After his discharge he did not work for the rest of our marriage.  Navy medical personnel and coworkers knew that something was wrong in the relationship and even noted in my records that I was suicidal.  Because I was to afraid of what would happen to me physically and in my career, or to others who might find out, I did not report him to anyone other than a few trusted individuals the specifics of what was happening.  I was seeking a divorce and kept it a secret.  I was unable to come to work or function, and was hiding from him.

My mother called the military base from the State of Washington trying to locate me.  After being given no support or information she continued to go up the ranks.  As my mother reported to the Command, there had never been a time that I had ever behaved in this fashion and they agreed that to that point my record had been impeccable/commendable.  At that point I was AWOL a few weeks.

Issues at work included a female superior Officer that singled me and a few other targets out for targeted behavior.  My mother and I later learned that after numerous complaints from OTHER personnel she was reassigned about the time I went AWOL.

The Military prior to my mothers contact to them, had not contacted anyone on my emergency list even though they knew there were problems with my husband and that I was suicidal.

My mother talked me into going back to the military after a few more weeks.  I returned to disciplinary action and the start of what ended up being my release under GENERAL (Under Honorable Conditions).

When I started in the Navy I enlisted to go into the Hygienist program.  I was told that Dental was closed so they put me as undesignated saying that it would be easy to get into the program once it was open.  After two years I was selected for the program after volunteering when I was out to sea on my off hours including lunch hour while I was undesignated.  Given the opportunity to sign up due to my ship decommissioning.  I reenlisted for this program.  After reenlisting for this I was told that the Dental Hygienist program was no longer available.

Since my discharge I returned to the State of Washington, pursued and received the divorce (which took over a year due to husbands refusing to sign or file documents), lost my house due to the divorce, and am in the process of starting over and securing a successful future.

As stated above, I respectfully request the State of Oregon Dental Forms be signed so I can continue my education and work in Dental.  I am further respectfully requesting to change my GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) to HONORABLE conditions.  Correct my DD 214 form (15A) to reflect my MGIB DD 2366 form of contributing to the Montgomery 01 Bill Act of 1984.  Reinstate my ability to use my GI Bill and the Veteran Status for employment and other purposes.”

Respectfully,

[signed] T_ B_

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214
Montgomery G.I. Bill application 
DD Form 553 dated 040607
Dental Verification of Competence Documents (2 pgs)
Dental Assistant Position Description from Oregon Board of Dentistry (11 pgs)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	20000428 - 20000829	COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  20000830		Date of Discharge:  20040910

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    04  00  01  (Does not exclude lost time.)
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  57 days
	Confinement:		  none

Age at Entry:  18 

Years Contracted:  4 (16 month extension)

Education Level:  10	(GED)			AFQT:  36

Highest Rate:  DN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.6 (3) 	Behavior:  3.0 (3)		OTA:  3.33 

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Good Conduct Medal FPE 2003 AUG 29.

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority:  MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

040505:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (3 specs):
	Specification 1: UA from 0700 to 1045, 040407.
	Specification 2: UA from 0830, 040408 to0740, 040412.
Specification 3: UA from 0700, 040421 to0700, 040422
	Award:  Forfeiture of $500 per month for 2 months, reduction to E-2.  No indication of appeal in the record.

040625:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (CO’s NJP of 040505 for VUCMJ, Article 86 (unauthorized absence on 3 specifications), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

040628:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 85: Desertion from 1430 040505 to 1200, 040625. 
Award:  Forfeiture of $500 per month for 2 months, reduction to E-1.  No indication of appeal in the record.

040830:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from 0700, 040820 to 0700, 040823. 
Award:  Oral/written reprimand.  No indication of appeal in the record.

040625:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (VUCMJ Article 85 (Desertion from 040504 to 040625), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning

040830:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct pattern of misconduct.

040830:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights.

040830:	Commanding Officer, Naval Dental Center Southeast authorized the Applicant's discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of pattern of misconduct.

041012:	Commanding Officer, Naval Dental Center Southeast forwarded the administrative discharge package to BUPERS.  Commanding Officer’s comments:  “I have authorized immediate separation of the service member.  Based on the processing guidelines of MILPERSMAN article 1910-140 for Pattern of Misconduct, the service member was administratively separated on 040910 with a “General Discharge” characterization of service.”

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20040910 by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A and B) with a service characterization of general (under honorable conditions).  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 requests a change to her DD Form 214 to reflect contributions to the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB). The Applicant’s record contained a DD Form 553 indicating she participated in the MGIB. A recommendation for administrative change of the DD Form 214 is included above. For the information of the Applicant, DD Form 214 correction requests (containing full name, rank/rate, social security number, periods of service, and current mailing address) may be sent to: 
Navy Personnel Command (PERS 312)
5720 Integrity Drive
Millington, TN 38055-3120

The Applicant requests the Board obtain the “proper signatures (Licensed Dentist’s) on State of Oregon Dental Documentation.” She states she has attempted to get this information from personnel who have personal knowledge of her “competence in expanded functions.” The Board has no authority to direct a medical professional to endorse or affirm any civil medical credential. 

The Applicant contends that she deserves an honorable discharge as evidenced by her outstanding 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 2 retention warnings and 3 nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 85 and 86 (4 specs) of the UCMJ.  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 far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service.  Relief is not warranted.

The Applicant states her husband was abusive and contends that her unauthorized absences resulted because she “was unable to come to work or function, and was hiding from him.”  While she may feel that her abusive husband was the underlying cause of her misconduct, the record clearly reflects her willful misconduct. The Applicant further contends that medical personnel and coworkers knew of her husband’s abuse because of her medical treatment for “ulcer type pain and bruises” and even noted in her “records that I was suicidal.” The Applicant bears the burden of establishing her issues through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, of the presence of injuries consistent with abuse. By the Applicant’s own admission, she did not report any abuse to the chain of command. The record does show that the Applicant was seen by Psychiatry for suicidal ideation due to occupational stressors. Competent medical authority determined that there was no evidence of psychosis and the Applicant denied suicidal ideation. The Applicant “expressed her desire to be discharged” and “hinted that she might try to hurt herself with the specific intent of trying to get discharged.” The Applicant “asked about the role of the mental health department in assisting with her discharge.” In these sessions with the mental health providers, the Applicant never stated she was being abused. She indicated she was looking for a way to get discharged from the Navy. These sessions began before her first nonjudicial punishment. The evidence of record did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for her conduct or that she should not be held accountable for her actions.  Relief is not warranted.

The Applicant alleges impropriety in that she suffered reprisal after seeking psychiatric counseling. She also alleges issues at work where she was singled out by a “female superior officer.” The Applicant bears the burden of establishing her issues through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, of any reprisal or mistreatment. 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 additional evidence related to this 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 25 April 2005, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600), SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

B.  The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 85, desertion.

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