Author: CAP
Last saved by: joyce.meeks
Company: NCPB

Docket No. ND05-01260

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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

 ex-SA, USN
Docket No. ND05-01260

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050718.  The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing before the Board in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan area.  The Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A personal appearance discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20060508.  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 Uncharacterized by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application and/or attached document/letter: 

“1.  I was actively demonstrating success in recruit training
2.  My employment before & after boot camp is clear evidence of my competence; & mastery of myself.
3.  I was never depressed, suffered from insomnia, or never had feelings of worthlessness while in training.
4.  The entries on the attached SF600 are inconsistent with my character & the true nature of my naval service.

I am requesting that my discharge be reviewed and changed based on the following unjust issues.

I arrived at Recruit Training Command late evening on January 17, 2002.  During the days following I went through the in-processing procedure.  During this in-processing there is a portion referred at the “Moment of Truth”.  At this time I revealed personal information regarding my brief hospitalization for depression.  I stressed that I had been symptom and medication free for five and one half years.

Because of this honest disclosure I was referred to the Recruit Evaluation Unit (REU) for mental health evaluation.  While at the REU I had several sessions with Lt. H.A.  D_, USNR.  Lt. D_ told me that she would give her professional recommendation that I be retained and continue training for my Naval career.  Lt. D_ also asked me to send for the hospital discharge summary from my stay at the Big Spring State Hospital.  This I gladly did.

I was then assigned to Recruit Training division 132, Ship #3 and began my recruit training.  During my training I demonstrated my ability to succeed and excel in many areas.  I was being considered for a Division staff position.  Only those recruits that are demonstrating success and an understanding in U.S. Navy Core Values are considered for these positions, that of leading other recruits.

To my surprise and the surprise of my 1st Division Commander, I was ordered back to the Recruit Evaluation Unit.  My division Commander, Petty Officer W_ questioned why I was being ordered back to the REU.  He and I discussed the possible reasons and he asked if I was considering quitting.  I told him that I had never considered quitting.  He advised me that his recommendation was that I continue training because I was a good recruit and he needed me in his Division.

As ordered, I returned to the REU where I again met with Lt. H.A. D_.  Lt. D_ informed me that I was being recommended for separation.  This caught me by surprise as I was having very good success in my training.  I questioned Lt. D_ about why I was being separated from the Nave.  She replied that Her Captain said that I would not pass for a waiver.  Shortly thereafter I was discharged from the Navy with a separation code of JFC and a reentry code of RE-4.

This discharge is an injustice to me.  After carefully reviewing the attached SF600 it is plain for anyone to see that the data entered on the Recruit Mental Health form is not consistent with the narrative that was written by lt.  H.A. D_.  I was never depressed, never suffered from insomnia, and never had feelings of worthlessness while in recruit training.  I firmly feel tht the entries on the SF600 are erroneous.

Please reconsider correcting this injustice by upgrading my discharge to honorable and assign a separation code that will reflect the true nature of my service in the Navy.”

Documentation

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

Letter from L_ S_, M.Ed., L.P.C. , dtd June 10, 2002 (2 pages)
Two pages from Applicant’s medical/service record, dtd February 11, 2002
Letter from N_ M. S_, Ed.D., Licensed Psychologist, dtd January 21, 2002
Applicant’s DD Form 214
Request for personal appearance hearing, (not signed, not dated)

Additional documents submitted by the Applicant at the time of the hearing:

	Character Letter from A_P_, dtd May 2, 2006 (not signed)
	Character Letter from S_T_, dtd May 3, 2006 (not signed)
	Character Letter from M_S_, dtd May 4, 2006
	Verification of Employment, Character Letter from A_F_, April 28, 2006
	Copy of email with Character Reference from A_N_, dtd May 3, 2006 
	Character Letter from L_L. S_, (not dated)
	Character Letter from M_R. W, notarized on April 10, 2006

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	20011026 - 20020116	COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  20020117		Date of Discharge:  20020220

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  01  04
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  None
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  24

Years Contracted:  4 (12 month extension)

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  73

Highest Rate:  SA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NA*				Behavior:  NA*		OTA:  NA*

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  None

* Not Applicable

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

UNCHARACTERIZED/ERRONEOUS ENTRY (OTHER), authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-130 (formerly Article 3620280).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

011026:	Delayed Entry Program Moment of Truth.  Applicant acknowledgement by signature that disclosure of additional information that is not listed in his military record could result in a $10,000 fine or involuntary discharge from the U.S. Navy.  Applicant was advised to list all civil involvement (juvenile or adult); drug usage, prior service information; dependent information and medical status information. 

011026:	Security Clearance Application (Standard Form 86).  Applicant answered “NO” to the following question:  “In the last 7 years, have you consulted a mental health professional (psychiatrist, psychologist, counselor, etc.) or have you consulted with another health care provider about a mental health related condition ?”  

020118:	Applicant examined at Recruit Mental Health, Naval Hospital, Great Lakes, IL, by H.A. K_., LT, MSC, USNR, Mental Health Staff
	Applicant is returned to duty, mental status exam is within normal limits.  Applicant was thoroughly assessed to rule out suicidal and homicidal risk and has denied any present thoughts or intended gestures or plans.  Diagnosis:
Axis I: No diagnosis offered on Axis I, occupational problem. 
Axis II: No diagnosis offered on Axis II. 
	Recommendation:  1.  Return to duty.  2.  Civilian medial records requested.  Please allow Applicant 5 min. phone call home to obtain CMR information.  3.  Applicant to return to REU once CMR’s arrive.  4.  SR referred to medical.

020206:	Applicant examined at Recruit Mental Health, Naval Hospital, Great Lakes, IL, by H. A. D_, LT, MSC, USNR, Mental Health Staff.  Applicant is returned to duty, mental status exam is within normal limits.  Applicant was thoroughly assessed to rule out suicidal and homicidal risk and has denied any present thoughts or intended gestures or plans.  Diagnosis:
Axis I: No diagnosis offered on Axis I, occupational problem.
Axis II:  No diagnosis offered on Axis II.
	Recommendation: 1. Return to duty.  2.  SR recalled to REU on 020207 at 0730.  Please ensure SR returns with Hardcard and RDC evaluation.

020207:	Applicant examined at Recruit Mental Health, Naval Hospital, Great Lakes, IL, by H. A. D_, LT, MSC, USNR, Mental Health Staff.
	Applicant is returned to duty, mental status exam is within normal limits.  Applicant was thoroughly assessed to rule out suicidal and homicidal risk and has denied any present thoughts or intended gestures or plans.  Diagnosis:
Axis I: No diagnosis offered on Axis I, occupational problem.
Axis II: No diagnosis offered on Axis II.
	Recommendation: 1. Return to duty.  2.  SR recalled to REU on 020211 at 0730.  Please ensure SR returns with Hardcard and RDC evaluation.

020211:	Recruit Mental Health, Administrative Separation Recommendation (Major Depressive Disorder).  Applicant revealed prior psychiatric treatment, referred for medical exam.  It was determined that the Applicant has a major depressive disorder. 
	Axis I: Major depressive disorder, single episode, EPTE, resolved
	Axis II: No diagnosis offered on Axis II..
	Plan and Recommendation: 1.  Entry level separation due to disqualifying psychiatric condition affecting SR’s potential for performance of expected duties and responsibilities while on active duty.
	2.  SR was educated regarding this condition and encouraged to seek treatment following separation.  SR is suitable to report to Separation Division.

020213:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by a major depressive disorder.

020213:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

020214:	Commanding Officer, Recruit Training Command, Great Lakes, IL directed discharge by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by a major depressive disorder, with a characterization of Entry Level Separation.  Commanding Officer’s comments:  “As evidenced by the listed enclosures, an erroneous enlistment has occurred.  I authorize separation from the naval service with an Entry Level Separation.  Reentry Code:  Not Eligible (RE-4).”

040114:	NDRB documentary record review Docket Number ND03-00488 conducted.  Determination: discharge proper and equitable; relief not warranted.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20020220 by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment (A) with a service characterization of uncharacterized (entry level separation).  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 (B and C).  

Prior to the hearing it was explained to the Applicant that the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, and that NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code. The Applicant was also informed that 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.  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes. The Applicant acknowledged that he understood this but decided to read a prepared statement as part of his testimony that specifically requested that his RE code be changed.  

In the Applicant’s case, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore considered the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable.  The Applicant contends that his discharge was unjust because  “he was never depressed, suffered from insomnia, or never had feelings of worthlessness while in training.”  On 2002018, the Applicant’s second day in the U.S. Navy, he revealed an undisclosed prior history of psychiatric treatment.  On 20020211, upon examination of the Applicant and his civilian pre-service medical records, competent medical authorities confirmed that the Applicant had a major depressive disorder and recommended an Entry Level Separation due to a disqualifying condition affecting the Applicant’s potential for performance of expected duties and responsibilities while on active duty.  According to the Naval Military Personnel Manual, a member may be separated on the basis of erroneous enlistment, reenlistment, induction, or extension of enlistment when the enlistment would not have occurred if relevant facts had been known by the Navy Department or had appropriate directives been followed; the enlistment was not the result of fraudulent conduct on the part of the member; and the defect is unchanged in any material respect.  The record contains no evidence of any wrongdoing by the medical authorities or anyone else for that matter in the discharge process.  The summary of service clearly documents that erroneous entry was the reason the Applicant was discharged.  Since no other Narrative Reason for Separation more clearly describes why the Applicant was discharged, a change would be inappropriate.  Relief based on this issue is not warranted. 

By regulation, members notified of intended recommendation for discharge within the first 180 days of enlistment are eligible for an uncharacterized or entry-level separation characterization of service.  Unless there were unusual circumstances regarding a servicemember’s performance or conduct that would merit an honorable characterization, an uncharacterized discharge is generally considered the most appropriate characterization of a member’s service.  The Applicant's service record did not contain any unusual circumstances during his less than 2 months in the military to warrant a change of discharge to honorable.  The Applicant should be aware that, with respect to nonservice-related administrative matters, i.e., VA benefits, educational pursuits, and especially civilian employment, an uncharacterized separation is considered the equivalent of an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

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.  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.  After a complete review of the entire record, including the evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board determined that the discharge was appropriate and that the evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate the conduct, which precipitated the discharge.  Relief denied.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant.  The Applicant has exhausted his opportunities for review by the NDRB.    The Applicant may, however, petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100, concerning a change in the characterization of naval service, if he desires further review of his case.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 33, effective 13 Jun 01 until 21 Aug 02, Article 1910-130 (formerly 3620280), Separation by Reason of Defective Enlistments and Inductions - Erroneous Enlistment.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety.

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity.

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 “http://Boards.law.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:

		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