ex-STGSA, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20100126
Characterization of Service Received:  
Narrative Reason for Discharge:  
Authority for Discharge:  MILPERSMAN 

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

Summary of Service
Prior Service:
Inactive:	USNR (DEP)	20070329 - 20070415  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  20070416	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20080826	Highest Rank/Rate:  STGSA
Length of Service:   Year(s)     Month(s)   09 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  76
Evaluation Marks:	Performance:  NFIR	Behavior:  NFIR	OTA:  NFIR

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	 

Periods of UA/CONF:  	UA 20080422 - 20080723 (92 DAYS)

NJP:  	SCM:  	SPCM:  	CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- 20080327:	For the health care professional recommendation that you be separated from service, as your condition is of such severity as to render you incapable of serving adequately in military service in any capacity.

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.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 11, effective 31 May 2005 until Present, Article 1910-106, SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL.

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.

C.  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.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	Applicant contends his discharge was improper due to neglect from his chain of command and the medical staff that was treating him.
2.	Applicant contends his misconduct was a result of severe depression, PTSD precipitated by a traumatic event and insane thoughts.

Decision

Date:  20110303		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 Applicant identified two decisional issues for the Board’s consideration.  The Board completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to  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) retention warning on 27 Mar 2008 for being recommended for administrative separation by medical staff due to a mental condition not a disability.  There was no record of commanding officer’s nonjudicial punishment (NJP) or trial by courts-martial.  The record did reflect the Applicant attempted suicide by injesting prescription drugs and was admitted to the Naval Hospital Portsmouth VA for emergency treatment and a follow-on mental health evaluation that diagnosed him with severe depression.  The Applicant was returned to his command aboard ship and shortly thereafter attempted suicide once again in early Mar 2008.  He was subsequently readmitted to the emergency room, and then the psychiatry ward aboard Naval Hospital Portsmouth where he was further evaluated and treated.  He was diagnosed with Adjustment disorder (severe), Opioid dependence, and Alcohol dependence and on 27 Mar 2008 recommended for administrative separation due to his severe adjustment disorder.  Based on the Applicant’s service performance and recommendations from the Naval Hospital medical staff, his command processed him for administrative separation.  When notified of administrative separation processing using the  procedure on 27 Mar 2008, the Applicant waived  rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review.  The Applicant was then transferred from the ship to the Transient Personnel Unit (TPU) awaiting administrative separation.  On 22 Apr 2008, while assigned to the TPU, the Applicant departed Norfolk Naval Station for his home town without authorization.  He was subsequently declared a deserter and later apprehended by civil authorities (Sandusky, OH) in July 2008; he was returned to Navy authorities on 23 July 2008 after 92 days of UA.  The Applicant was subsequently discharged with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial (SILT).  The Board did not have the SILT or referral of charges to trial by court-martial documentation available for review.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends his discharge was improper due to neglect from his chain of command and the medical staff that was treating him.  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.  However, regulations permit relief on equitable grounds if the Applicant’s discharge is inconsistent with standards of discipline of the Naval service.  After close examination of the available records, the Board found no evidence of impropriety in the professional conduct or handling of the Applicant’s case by medical staff and his chain of command.  When a Sailor’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service under Honorable conditions.  An Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge is warranted when a member engages in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the naval service.  The Applicant’s conduct during the current period of service, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, was marred by two suicide attempts and desertion/UA for 92 days that concluded only after apprehension by civil authorities near his hometown and resulted in a pending trial by court-martial for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  Sailors may be administratively separated upon their request, in lieu of trial by Special or General court-martial, if charges have been referred with respect to an offense for which a punitive discharge is authorized and it has been determined that the Sailor is unqualified for future military service.  The Applicant, after consultation with Defense Counsel, willfully signed a request for SILT in which he admitted guilt to the offenses charged and then submitted it to his Commanding Officer for consideration of foregoing a trial by courts-martial, which could have resulted in confinement up to three years and a Bad Conduct discharge.  The Applicant’s request was considered and approved by his Commanding Officer, which resulted in his administrative separation with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions character of service.  After careful consideration of all the available evidence, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable, and in accordance with the applicable orders and directives in effect at the time of separation.  Therefore, the Board determined a change to the characterization of service would not be appropriate.  Relief denied.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends his misconduct was a result of severe depression, PTSD precipitated by a traumatic event, and insane thoughts.  There is no evidence in the record, nor did the Applicant provide any evidence, to indicate he attempted to use the numerous services available for service members who undergo personal problems during their enlistment such as the Navy Chaplain, Medical or Mental Health professionals, Navy Relief Society, Family Advocacy Programs, or even the Red Cross.  Only after his first attempt at suicide did he receive attention and care for his mental, physical, and emotional health.  Unfortunately, after initial hospitalization treatment and return to his command with regularly scheduled aftercare appointments, he again attempted suicide.  After a second hospitalization, mental health evaluation, and treatment, the Applicant was diagnosed to be suffering from major depression, to be opioid and alcohol dependent, and was subsequently recommended for administrative separation.  He was transferred from the ship to the TPU awaiting administrative discharge.  Though continued aftercare treatment was scheduled for the Applicant, he by his own admission felt depressed, was impatient and homesick, and therefore chose to absent himself from his appointed place of duty in order to go back home.  

The NDRB recognizes that serving in the U.S. Navy is challenging.  Numerous resources are available for Sailors to use in the event they need assistance in dealing with stress or other personal issues affecting their health versus self-medicating with prescription drugs and abusing alcohol.  After considering all the facts and circumstances in this case, to include the Applicant’s statements to the Board and the Naval Hospital Portsmouth Staff Psychiatrist’s finding that the Applicant was accountable and responsible for his behavior, the Board determined that this issue was without merit and did not provide a basis for which relief could be granted.  Relief denied.

Summary:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service,  record entries and administrative separation process, the Board found   Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall   and the narrative reason for separation shall remain .

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), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100 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