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

 ex-SHSA, USN
Docket No. ND03-00523

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 20030210, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant listed the Disabled American Veterans as the representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040114.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain:  GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/FRAUDULENT ENTRY INTO MILITARY SERVICE, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-134 (formerly 3630100).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “I should have been given an honorable discharge due to me following an order from my recruiter to fill in one question wrong prior to entered the U.S. Navy.”

Additional issues submitted by Applicant’s representative (Disabled American Veterans):

“Dear Chairperson:

After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the contention of the appellant in his request for a discharge upgrade of his current General Under Honorable Conditions discharge to that of Honorable.

The FSM served on active service from November 18, 1999 to September 27, 2001 at which time he was discharged due to Fraudulent Entry into Military Service (Other). 

The FSM contends the current discharge is improper because he was following the direction of his recruiter to fill out his application inappropriately. That he should not be penalized for following instructions.

This creates a need for a review of the application of the standard, for the Board to determine that the Applicant’s discharge was improper. The Board will determine which reason for discharge should have been assigned based upon the facts and circumstances before the Board, including the service regulations governing the reasons for discharge at that time, to determine whether relief is warranted. See, SECNAVIST 5420.174 (c), Par. (f) (1).

As the representative, we ask that consideration be given to equitable relief, as this is a matter that involves a determination whether a discharge should be changed under the equity standards, to include any issue upon which the Applicant submits to the Board’s discretionary authority, under SECNAVIST 5420.174C.

We ask for the Board’s careful and sympathetic consideration of all the evidence of record used in rendering a fair and impartial decision.  These issues do not supersede any issues previously submitted by the Applicant.

Respectfully”

Documentation

In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:

Applicant’s DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	990922 - 991117	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  991118		Date of Discharge:  010927

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  10  10
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  10			AFQT:  41

Highest Rate:  SHSN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.00 (1)	Behavior:  1.00 (1)		OTA:  1.67

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  SSDR, AFEM, HSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/FRAUDULENT ENTRY INTO MILITARY SERVICE, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-134 (formerly 3630100).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

010803:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 128: Assault.
	Award: Forfeiture of $585 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to SHSA.  No indication of appeal in the record.

010921:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Dereliction in the performance of duties on 010917.
	Award: Confinement of bread and water for 3 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

010925:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a general (under honorable conditions by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to fraudulent entry.

010925:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

010927:	DD Form 214: Applicant discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to fraudulent entry.

[PARTIAL DISCHARGE PACKAGE MISSING]

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20010927 with a characterization of general (under honorable conditions) by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to fraudulent entry (A).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B).  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).

Issue 1 and 2:  The Board disagrees with the Applicant's contention that he is entitled to an upgrade.  When the service of a member of U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.  A general (under honorable conditions) 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 Applicant’s service was marred by award of non-judicial punishment (NJP) on two separate occasions for assault and dereliction of duty.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service.  Relief denied

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 the service.  However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review.  Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the Applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than honorable discharge.  Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, a positive employment record, and certification of community service and non-involvement with civil authorities are examples of verifiable proof that can be submitted.   

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.  The Applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 32, effective 26 Apr 01 until 21 Aug 02, Article 1910-134 (previously 3630100), Separation by Reason of Defective Enlistments and Inductions – Fraudulent Entry Into the Naval Service.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.  

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.

PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT

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 Directive 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Directive.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive 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 Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at "afls14.jag.af.mil".

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:

		Naval Council of Personnel Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023