Soldier's Discharge Case Study

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

S: Veteran stated, "My head does not feel right, it is just something going on.

REQUEST, REASON, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his uncharacterized discharge to honorable. The applicant states, in effect, he served for four years in the National Guard and deployed to Afghanistan in 2005 thru 2006. The applicant contends, he enlisted upon redeployment despite having Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) symptoms and other medical problems. The applicant states, he requested counseling for his PTSD, instead he received a counseling statement informing him that he would receive an entry level status (ELS) separation with an uncharacterized discharge. The applicant further contends, he was diagnosed with PTSD and rated 40 percent disabled rating by the VA for PTSD. The applicant states, he had held a position as the communications sergeant with the McAllen Police Department after being discharged. The applicant contends, he is an upstanding member of the community has never been in trouble with the law, and this is evidence of his desire to serve. The applicant further contends, he served his country honorably as an infantry Soldier and an uncharacterized discharge for PTSD is wrong. The applicant states, an honorable discharge would do justice for the unfortunate administrative action taken against him in September 2006.

In December 2015, The Joint Commission launched a campaign seeking to reduce readmissions by providing resources for both health care providers and patients to engage patients in the discharge planning process.1,2 According to voluntarily reported data collected by The Joint Commission between January 2014 and October 2015, the major contributors to 197 sentinel events were failures in patient communication, patient education, and patient rights.2 A review of communication during the hospital discharge process found that discharge summaries often lacked information on counseling, treatments, discharge medications, test results, and follow-up plans.3

The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant states, in effect, after returning from Iraq, his unit was deactivated and he was placed on IRR. He understood he was placed in the IRR until he was contacted in July 2012, again on 3 January 2013 to sign his paperwork and continued to drill in the interim. The applicant states, in effect, he continued to drill until he was handed orders, reducing him in rank and discharging him under other than honorable conditions effective 17 January 2014.

In addition to being counseled on the issues above, he received counseling on the following: (1) that behavior for which he has been counseled may result in punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, court-martial, or adverse action such as bar for reenlistment, suspension of favorable actions (promotion, retention, schools), or other appropriate administrative sanctions; (2) that if this behavior continues, separation under the provisions of AR 635-200 may be initiated;(3) that if separated prior to ETS, that he could receive an honorable, general, or other than honorable discharge for his current term of service, or his term of service would be uncharacterized if less than 180 days had been served on active duty; (4) the basis of each characterization of service, the discharge certificates received for each, and his character of service would become part of a permanent record which may be provided to any Federal agency if they were to apply for either federal employment or security clearance; (5) the possible effects that each type of discharge would have on reenlistment, civilian employment, veteran benefits, and related matters; (6) that a general discharge would cause loss of civil service retirement credit; (7) that other than honorable discharge would result in him being reduced to the lowest rank, loss of payment of accrued leave, and loss of all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration and other federal and state agencies; (8) that separation prior to ETS may

In evaluating the outcome and measuring the success of the team, we went back to the objective that was established to determine if these were met within the timeline specified?

Reason/Authority/Codes/Characterization: Misconduct (Drug Abuse) / AR 135-178, Paragraph 12-1(d) / NIF / RE-3 / General, Under Honorable

As a community social services assistant, I work directly with pediatric patients that have been discharged from St. Vincent Hospital. When meeting with patients post discharge, I have noticed that they are often confused about the types of services they require. I have considered various options to address this issue and have come up with a potential solution. Hospital admissions can be overwhelming for young children; I am suggesting we trial providing homecare information in a more fun and less intimidating manner. I am suggesting we hire a popular local clown named Claris who performs at children’s parties .Claris is passionate about helping children, and would be able to explain homecare information in a fun and interactive way that would be easier for children to understand.

On April 6, 2016, at 1645 hours, MSA Clerk from Woman’s Clinic notified VA police of disruptive Veteran. The Veteran entered the Clinic after hours stating they were going to the Pharmacy but instead went to Women’s clinic and demanded to see a doctor. The Veteran hit the window when, they informed her that the doctors had gone home for the day. VA police made contact with her and she stated she needs medicine or she would die. VA Police asked her mutable times if she wanted EMS called and she stated “no”. The Veteran was given a verbal warning for violating 38 CFR 1.218 (b) (11) Disorderly Conduct which creates loud boisterous and unusual noise. Veteran departed VA controlled property without further incident.

On August 25th 2006, I and my ex-husband got into an argument on Fort Riley. It was at time that we were going thru a divorce and tension in our relation was real high. The argument started with my ex-husband over the car that we had together. The volume of the argument was intense and a bystander called the MP’s (Military Police). Once the MP’s arrive at the scene they defused the situation and took statements. I was arrest and took to the MP station that night. I received a citation and was release on my own recognizes. A couple of days later I received a court date in the mail and had to show up to the Fort Riley magistrate. When I went to court they found me guilty and put me on probation for a year. But while

The applicant requests a change to the narrative reason for his separation. The applicant states, in effect, his discharge is improper because his physical condition was acceptable for military service starting with his enlistment medical examination and leading up to the point of injury in 2009. The applicant states, he enlisted in September 2009 and his initial medical examination listed his physical condition as sound and fit for his age group. The applicant further states, he has several letters from different doctors sharing their expert medical opinion, stating that the injury he sustained occurred during basic training. The applicant contends that the VA is stating that this was a preexisting injury and is the natural progression

The applicant requests an upgrade of his uncharacterized discharge to general, under honorable conditions and a change to his reentry code. The applicant states, in effect, at the time, he enlisted, he was only 18 year old and he was unprepared mentally for the challenges that awaited him in the Army. The applicant contends, he have matured and he has mentally prepared himself to reenlist and face these challenges once

The applicant requests a change to the narrative reason for his discharge from unsatisfactory performance to a medical discharge. The applicant seeks relief, contending, in effect, that he is receiving a 20 percent service connected disabling rating from the VA due to his injury that occurred while on active duty. He was discharge because he was unable to pass the Army Physical Fitness Test due to a third metatarsal fracture that he incur during basic combat training. He states that his narrative reason is preventing him from being eligible for educational benefits, post 9/11 GI Bill and VA loan

On March 10, 2004 – in a joint resolution of Sandiganbayan they granted the defense leave to file demurrers in Crim. Case Nos. 26565 (illegal use of alias) and 26905 (perjury).