Case Study: Honorable Conditions Discharge

Applicant’s attorney, Mr. Juan Vera, appeared representing the applicant’s interest. Court reporting duties were provided by Ms. Elizabeth Maeyama, License No. 12060. Interpreting services were provided by Ms. Berta ZeFrench, Certification No. 36353581. The deposition started at approximately 2:24 p.m. and lasted until 3:15 p.m. The applicant testified that she arrived at applicant’s attorney’s office at 1:00 p.m. to prepare for her deposition; therefore, I anticipate applicant’s attorney’s office’s §5710 invoice to be for no more than two hours and 15 minutes. I will make a more specific recommendation regarding the yet to

If any of the creditors within the bankruptcy or the bankruptcy trustee wanted to revoke Josh’s discharge based on this lie, should the judge do so?

Regulations found at 55 Pa. Code § 275.5 stated that the issue “is not whether the CAO or administering agency acted properly based upon the information then available, but whether the appellant was eligible for the period of time at issue based upon evidence of eligibility the client is able to provide at or before the hearing”. The Department’s Representative’s testimony was that the new determination based on the new information was still pending with another Department worker and that the issue of the appeal was related to category MG-91, specifically. The ALJ finds that prior to the administrative hearing the Department was in receipt of information that could have altered the Appellant’s eligibility for MA. Prior to the administrative hearing, the Appellant should have been reviewed for eligibility under the MAWD program as requested on her appeal and issued a new eligibility determination, but the Department failed to do

In this case, the Appellant provided verification from her eye doctor that showed additional medical conditions, not previously known to the Department. (Exhibit A-1) The ALJ finds that this new medical documentation may change the outcome of the Appellant’s eligibility for EMA. Although the Department did not have this information at the time of the denial, the Appellant was able to provide information that could change the Department’s decision of ineligibility.

Because of Josh's lie, what if the people Josh owes, his creditors and trustees, wants the discharge to be rescinded? Should the Judge withdraw the discharge based upon Josh's lie, even though it would not have any ramifications on this case?

Based on the DA Form 4856s, dated 2 thru 3 May 2009, the applicant received the following counseling: (1) Initial Counseling (2) Reception and Integration Counseling (3) Barracks standard and operation procedures (4) the most violated area amount AIT Soldiers. Negative counseling recommending the applicant for separation under chapter 5-17

This matter is before the Court on a Petition Steven M. Labrie for attorney’s fees associated with his appeal from a decision from the Department of Labor and Training [“DLT”].

As a result of this physical altercation, both Mr. Snyder and Mr. O’Neil were discharged. Both men filed identical

I have reviewed your appeal dated September 1, 2015. In your complaint, you contend the percent required to serve should be 50% instead of 80% regarding St. Louis County Cause 11SL-CR08266 (Sequence 12) and St. Charles County Cause 1111-CR06523-01(Sequence 13). You contend the 2009 Long Term Treatment incarceration under Cycle 20071105 should not count as a commitment; however, because this is your second Long Term Treatment incarceration it does count as a prior commitment. You were received in the Missouri Department of Corrections on October 27, 1997, to serve your first Long Term Treatment commitment regarding St. Louis County Cause 97CR-000779A (Sequence 11) and 96CR-06039 (Sequence 12). Had you successfully completed the program and released

The applicant requests an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant states, in effect, his discharge is unfair, because his mental condition was not acknowledged or considered. The applicant states, in effect, he had two separate offenses related to Spice, but he was never found guilty of possession, using, or purchasing Spice. The applicant contends he admitted to having tried Spice before when he was in a deep depression/anxiety state, after he was wrongfully assaulted by an El Paso, Texas, Police Officer. The applicant states, in effect, he was slammed face first into the concrete by an El Paso, Texas, Police Officer, causing severe dental fracture. The applicant contends his resulting appearances cause him to isolate himself and seek treatment from behavioral health services for atypical behavior. The applicant contends that after months of seeing a psychiatrist and psychologist, he was making progress until his identical twin brother separated, and his support system immediately deteriorated. The applicant contends he started binge drinking, even though he was under age and when he could not get alcohol, he would go ballistic. The applicant states, in effect, he unfortunately turned to Spice, which led to him be spotted

PO is referred to continue chemical dependence treatment at the community agency. PO will need to have a new assessment to determine appropriate level of care. PO is recommended to attend minimally of two self-help meetings per week, abstain from all mood-altering substance, and utilize positive support structure to aim and maintain substance free lifestyle.

The social welfare practice that will evolve with the implementation of this legislation is an overhaul to the veterans’ appeals process that will allow veterans to receive decisions in a timelier manner. This legislation, will, by extension,

The applicant requests an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant states, in effect, he is requesting an upgrade because his discharge is inequitable and unfair. The applicant contends, his discharge was based on one isolated incident in 36 months of service good with no other adverse action. The applicant further contends, the results of a mandatory urinalysis should not be used against a Soldier on the issue of characterization. Instead it should be based solely on military behavior and performance of duty during the current period of service. The applicant contends, he was not allowed to proven himself to be a Soldier after his rehabilitation.

Ineffective discharge teaching often leads to unnecessary admissions to the hospital resulting in negative patient outcomes and decreased patient satisfaction. This negatively impacts the well-being of the patient and creates a financial burden on institutions. As a result, this universal practice issue requires a call to action on the part of the nursing profession. Nurses can proactively assist in assuring incidents of readmission do not occur. Nurses as educators play a critical role in the successful transition of patients from hospital to home. The overall goal of discharge education is to ensure there is an exchange of critical information between the patient and nurse in which plans of care are understood and followed. The research

Note: if the absence was terminated by apprehension, add the following element (d) That the absence was terminated by apprehension. (4) Abandoning watch or guard. (a) That the accused was a member of a guard, watch, or duty; (b) That the accused absented himself or her-self from his or her guard, watch, or duty section; (c) That absence of the accused was without authority; and Note: If the absence was with intent to abandon the accused's guard, watch, or duty section, add the following element (d) That the accused intended to abandon his or her guard, watch, or duty section. (5) Absence from unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid maneuvers or field exercises. (a) That the accused absented himself or herself from his or her unit, organization, or place of duty at which he or she was required to be; (b) That the absence of the accused was with-out authority; (c) That the absence was for a certain period of time; (d) That the accused knew that the absence would occur during a part of a period of maneuvers or field exercises; and (e) That the accused intended to avoid all or part of a period of maneuvers or field. (1) In general. This article is designed to cover every