ex-OS3, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20151013
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   
Reenlistment Code:  
Authority for Discharge:  MILPERSMAN 1910-124 [PARENTHOOD OR CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILDREN]

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:	USANG	20020118 - 20030502  UNCHAR	Active:	
	USNR (DEP)	20071030 - 20080226  

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Current Enlistment:  20080227	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension 
Date of Discharge:  20101208	Highest Rank/Rate:  OS3
Length of Service:   Year(s)     Month(s)   12 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  38
Evaluation Marks:	Performance:  3.0 (3)	Behavior:  2.3 (3)	OTA:  2.50

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	  

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJP:  

SCM:  

SPCM:  

CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- 20100209:	For failure to submit Travel Claim, Comply with Family Care Plan, and notify chain of command of personal issues affecting work ethics. 

           - 20101109:    For non-compliance to the Family Care Plan.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

	  “”

The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.

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:	

Types of Witnesses Who Testified

	Expert:		Character:	

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C, Change 33, effective 4 August 2010 until Present, Article 1910-124, SEPARATION BY REASON OF CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT - PARENTHOOD.

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)(a), Presumption Concerning Court-Martial Specifications.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant feels that her time in service should be for 9 years because it is stated in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) reports.
2.    The Applicant contends that her discharge was inequitable because she was treated unfairly by her command and denied medical services prior to discharge.
3.	The Applicant implies that her significant negative aspects of service are a result of her personal problems and difficulties with her command which led to her delusional disorder diagnosis from the VA with what she feels is Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

Decision

Date:  20160208		Location:  Washington D.C.	Representation:  

By a vote of  the Characterization shall  .
By a vote of  the Narrative Reason shall  .

Discussion

As a result of the Applicant’s claim of PTSD along with a Mental Health diagnosis post-service, in accordance with U.S. Code, Title X, Section 1553 (d)(1), and in accordance with U.S. Code, Title X, Section 1553 (e)(2), the Naval Discharge Review Board included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist.  In accordance with section 1553 (d)(2), the service secretary expedited a final decision and accorded the case sufficient priority to achieve an expedited resolution.  A review of her record revealed that she did not deploy in support of a contingency operation, and so her case did not warrant an expedited review in accordance with U.S. Code, Title X, Section 1553(d)(1).

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 Board did complete 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) warnings.  Based on the Applicant’s Parenthood or Custody of Minor Children,  command administratively processed  for separation.   When notified of administrative separation processing using the  procedure, the Applicant waived  right to a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review.  The Applicant exercised  rights to consult with a qualified counsel and submit a written statement.

:  (Nondecisional) The Applicant feels that her time in service should be for 9 years because it is stated in the VA reports.  The VA documentation provided by the Applicant states that she served in the Army from 18 January 2002 to 3 November 2011.  However, the NDRB reviewed the Applicant’s NGB FORM 22 along with her enlistment contract with the Navy in her service record and found that she enlisted in the National Guard on 18 January 2002 and was discharged on 2 May 2003 by reason of convenience of the government.  Her record states that she did not report to basic training during that time.  She enlisted in the Navy on 27 February 2008 and was discharged 8 December 2010.  She received a waiver to enlist in the Navy do to the RE-3 reenlistment code assigned on her NGB FORM 22.  Based on the information in the record, the NDRB determined that the end date for Army service stated on the VA documentation submitted is erroneous.  As such, the NDRB found that a DD 214 correction request is not warranted.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends that her discharge was inequitable because she was treated unfairly by her command and denied medical services prior to discharge.  The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs.  The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support her issue.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that she was treated unfairly and denied medical services.  The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.  The commanding officer’s recommendation for separation is just that, a recommendation.  The Separation Authority determines whether the allegations in the notification of the basis for separation are substantiated by the evidence.  There is no provisional guarantee that a Sailor will receive anything that a local commanding officer recommends.  Relief denied.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant implies that her significant negative aspects of service are a result of her personal problems and difficulties with her command which led to her delusional disorder diagnosis from the VA with what she feels is PTSD.  After a thorough review of the Applicant’s service record, the NDRB determined her personal problems do not excuse her significant negative aspects of service.  Additionally, the NDRB requested the Applicant’s medical treatment records, but the VA was unable to locate them.  The Applicant did provide some VA documentation that shows a diagnosis of delusional disorder post-service and was determined to be not permanent.  The NDRB found no evidence in the service record of any indications of, or diagnosis for, PTSD.  Additionally, there is no evidence in either the Applicant’s service record, or the documentation she provided, that demonstrated any problems or symptoms manifesting during her enlistment.  Furthermore, the Applicant’s record does not document any attempts to seek help for any stress-related symptoms while in service.  Lacking any evidence of PTSD, the NDRB is unable to establish this contention as a basis for mitigation or consideration as an extenuating circumstance.  Relief denied. 

Summary:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service,  record entries, and discharge process, the Board found   Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL) and the narrative reason for separation shall remain PARENTHOOD OR CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILDREN.  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), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490, or http://www.secnav.navy.mil/mra/bcnr/Pages/default.aspx 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:  Effective 6 February 2015, the NDRB is authorized to change a NDRB Applicant’s Reenlistment Code if related to an accompanying change in discharge characterization or narrative, but this authority is strictly limited to those cases where an applicant’s narrative reason or characterization of discharge is changed and that change warrants revision of the previously issued reenlistment code.  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