ex-LTJG, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20080401
Characterization of Service Received: 
Narrative Reason for Discharge: MISCONDUCT (OTHER)
Authority for Discharge: SECNAVINST 1920.6B & NPC 251202 MAY 07

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: USNR (OCS)	20000503 - 20020905  To Accept Commission 		Active:   

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Appointment: 20020906	Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension	Date of Discharge:  20070630
Length of Service:    Yrs    Mths  25  Dys	Education Level:  	Age at Enlistment:  	AFQT:  NFIR
Highest Rank/Rate:  LTJG	 Officer’s Fitness Reports:  All officer performance reports were available to the Board for review. 
Awards and Decorations (per DD 214): NER, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, SSDR

NJPs:  - Extracted from Fitness Report & Counseling Record dtd 20070315.

	20061003:  Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation),
		     Article 92 (Derelict in the performance of duty)
     Article 89 (Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer),
		     Article 107 (False official statement).
	                   Awarded – Letter of Reprimand.  Susp - .
	
Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

Related to Military Service:	DD 214:  	Service and/or 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 Representation:  		From Member of Congress:  
Other Documentation (Describe) 

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6B (ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF OFFICERS), effective 13 December 1999 until Present establishes policies, standards and procedures for the administrative separation of Navy and Marine Corps officers from the naval service in accordance with Title 10, United States Code and DoD Directive 1332.30 of 14 March 1997.

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.

C.  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, Articles 89, 92, and 107.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1. Medical condition.
Decision

Date:  20080807		Location:  Washington D.C	 Representation:  

By a vote of  the Characterization shall  .
By a vote of  the Narrative Reason shall  MISCONDUCT (OTHER).

Discussion

Issue 1: (Equity)  RELIEF NOT WARRANTED.  The Applicant contends his  mitigate his misconduct.  While he may feel these issues were the underlying cause of his misconduct, the evidence of record does not demonstrate the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or he should not be held accountable for his actions due to a medical condition.  The Applicant provides an explanation to the NDRB for his past misconduct by stating he was depressed and ultimately had suicidal ideations while deployed on a submarine.  He states he reported these feelings to his direct supervisor who gave him a “pat on the back and sent me on my way.”  The Applicant indicates he again complained to his direct supervisor who took his concerns to the Commodore, but to no avail.  He additionally mentions there was a 10% attrition rate of the Junior Officer in his submarine squadron for psychological reasons during the time he spent at the squadron.  The Applicant admits he asked for an administrative discharge and made a willful decision to be disobedient to get off the submarine. 

In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  The Applicant’s record of service was marred by  for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Articles 89, 92 (two specifications) and 107.  Violations of Articles 89, 92, and 107 are considered serious offenses, punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and up to five years imprisonment if adjudicated by a special or general court martial.  The command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for an administrative discharge. There was no evidence in the Applicant’s record which provided supporting documentation to the claims the command failed to act upon his depression or suicidal ideations.  Additionally, there was no documentation provided to support the claim of junior officer attrition within the submarine squadron due to psychological problems. 

A review of the Applicant’s medical record indicated, as of 30 July 2006, the Applicant had a history of poor work performance and poor attitude at work while on a forward deployed submarine.  Additionally, it was noted in his medical record he had a history of disciplinary problems since enlistment to include insubordination, failure to obey orders, and false official statements.  The medical record continues by stating while forward deployed, the Applicant became depressed at sea and tried different ploys to get the attention of his commanding officer.  His continued efforts to voice dissatisfaction with the Navy lead to his NJP, and by his own admission he became disobedient to be removed from the submarine.  Prior to his NJP for insubordination the Applicant provided a written statement, which was later determined by his command to contain suicidal ideations.  As a result, the NJP was held in abeyance and the Applicant was MEDEVAC’d from the submarine for medical treatment.

The Applicant underwent a medical examination conducted by LT A. B., MD, Psychiatry Intern and LCDR P.M., MD, Psychiatry Resident.  The Applicant, at this time, denied suicidal ideations but indicated he had similar dissatisfaction with a previous employer before joining the Navy.  The medical examination concluded the Applicant was low risk for suicide, was psychiatrically fit for duty and was recommended to return to full duty.  The medical examination also recommended an administrative discharge by reason of convenience of the Government, due to a mental condition not constituting a physical disability.  The Applicant was not considered mental ill and was considered competent for his actions.  He was found not physical qualified for further submarine duty afloat or ashore by Lt J. V., Diving and Undersea Medicine, on 31 July 2006, with official notification to the Personnel Officer, Naval Submarine Support Center, NORVA on 28 August 2006.  Commander, Navy Personnel Command approved the Applicant’s disqualification from submarine duty on 26 February 2007 and the Applicant was subsequently processed for discharge based on his misconduct while on the submarine. 

When a  service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service under honorable conditions.  A  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 Board determined an upgrade or change would be inappropriate.

It should be noted officer’s in military service are held to a higher standard of conduct due to the nature of their responsibilities and the level of maturity normally associated within the officer ranks, to include even junior officers.  The NDRB understands serving on a submarine is extremely difficult, however, all personnel doing so undergo a thorough psychological screening for mental stability and the ability to endure the physical hardships which may be experienced by long periods of isolation under close quarters.  While not all officers serving in the Navy are able to serve on submarines for obvious reasons, it is unlikely those who discover submarine duty is more strenuous than originally thought become willfully insubordinate to be removed from their responsibilities.    

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service,   Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found 

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

Complaint Procedures:  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 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:  Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the 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.  If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted his 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 Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the Naval Discharge Review Board.  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 Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the Board’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 Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.  Additionally, the Board 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 subsequently is processed for an administrative involuntary separation for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended.  The Physical Evaluation Board case remains in suspense pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings.  If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct, 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 “PTSD.”  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records can grant this type of narrative reason change.  

Automatic Upgrades - There is no law or regulation, which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving Naval service.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge 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.  Examples of documentation that may be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  

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 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.  

Board Membership:  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