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

Docket No. ND05-01281

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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

 ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND05-01281

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050727.  The Applicant requested a documentary record and that his narrative reason for separation be changed.  The Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20060406.  After a thorough review of all available 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 reason for 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

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

“The narrative reason for separation, separation code, and reenlistment code are all improper given the circumstances.  Separation code JFC is for erroneous entry, which implies that certain information available to the recruiter, or which should have been provided by the inductee was demonstrably incorrect or missing.  

Such cannot reasonably be assumed since the event which precipitated inductees medical condition occurred within 200 yards of the recruiters’ office, and was of such a nature as to disrupt all normal activity for a 1 mile radius, and significantly affect normal activities over an even wider area.  In addition, the event triggered media special coverage.  As part of the recruiting process, I specifically discussed my proximity to the shooting with all recruiting personnel.  Furthermore, at MEPS, when asked if I had undergone any therapy for a psychological issue, I explicitly~de1ineated the events of the shooting at Santana High School, and that I had not sought therapy since there had been no symptoms of any psychological problems experienced to that date.  The first symptoms experienced did not occur until after my arrival at RTC.

Since all information regarding the above events was properly disclosed, as well as being common knowledge to the recruiters, any allegation of Erroneous Enlistment (erroneous entry) is clearly incorrect.  Possible alternative codes of HFT (Unqualified for Active Duty - Other), GFN/JFM/JFN (Released for Conditions Existing Prior to Service), or JHD (Navy Expeditious Discharge) might any of them be appropriate.  Given the specific language of the medical opinion supporting the discharge, JHD appears most appropriate, particularly since every effort was made to expedite the discharge, while no effort was given to rehabilitation required by DOD directives.

Indeed, the rush to discharge, rather than rehabilitate, is further evidenced by errors in the Commanding Officer’s authorization to discharge, which identifies the dischargee as a Black Male, who enlisted on 1/15/02, whereas I am a White Male, who enlisted on 27 SEP 01, as is correctly reflected on my DD-214.  Such discrepancies raise the question of whether or not the any of the supporting documents used to justify the discharge were based on accurate observation by competent individuals.  They also raise the question of; were the observations of a single individual, or a composite of several.  Further, since the CO’s authorization does not correctly identify me, and the DD-214 has discrepancies when compared to his authorization, the question arises; is the discharge itself valid? One other question; if the requirement for the recruit’s valid signature is necessary, the fact that I was a patient in a psychiatric ward raises the question of legal competency at the time.  Finally, the inattention to detail evidenced by the discrepancies between the CO’s authorization for Discharge, and the DD-214, raise the question of the all the other documentation used in my discharge.  The diagnosis and related opinion regarding service potential was rendered the same day as my admission to the psychiatric unit permitting no time for evaluation of any potential treatment, and no time to render any but the most cursory of such treatment.  They were rendered by an attending physician not identified by his military rank, if indeed he has one, and whose competence to make such judgments is therefore suspect, particularly as he has not identified himself as to his medical specialty.  His judgment is further brought into question by his inclusion of the fact that my arrival at RTC was on or about the first anniversary of the incident at Santana High School, but he fails to include the hyper-sensitization to any stimuli which might trigger recall of such a psychologically traumatic event at the time of such anniversary, particularly the first such anniversary.  It is generally recognized in academic circles that such period of hyper-sensitization is likely to produce short term aberrant behaviors, which frequently are not be indicative of deeper psychological problems.  The attending physicians’ failure to even reference this phenomenon and justify ignoring it raises the question of his basic competency in the field of psychology, or raises the question of; was he directed to ignore any such mitigating possibilities? In either case, the general validity of his observations and recommendations are highly suspect.

As to the question of reenlistment code, the failure to attempt rehabilitation brings into question the opinion of the attending physician that long term problems will result from the illness diagnosed.  Since this judgment is the sole basis for an RE-4, and is made simultaneously with a diagnosis which I have previously questioned, an RE-4 is neither proper nor equitable.  Given the history an RE-3 class would be appropriate, since it would reflect the questionable status of my future value to the military, rather than jumping to arbitrary conclusions in a rush to judgment, as has been the Navy’s practice throughout this incident.

Based on my observations, the correct Characterization of Service is UNCHARACTERIZED (ENTRY LEVEL SERPARATION), as appears on my DD-214, This is the only element that the Navy did not err in using.

Given all of the circumstances, I can understand why the Navy might be leery of re-enlisting me, because at this point, the feeling is mutual.  That does not, however, make it equitable for them to impose their prejudices upon the other services, where my AFQT score might otherwise make me as desirable as the Navy originally considered me.  The presence of an RE-3 should sufficiently advise all services that there are special circumstances in my case with which they need to be familiar and take into consideration for possible functional limitations.  If the Navy would feel more comfortable, I would happily stipulate that I will not attempt to enlist in the Navy.”

Documentation
The Applicant submitted the following documentation for the Board’s consideration in addition to the service and medical record:

Applicant’s DD Form 214
Clinical Record from Naval Hospital Great Lakes (5 pages)
Applicant’s administrative separation processing notification procedure (2 pages)
Commanding Officer’s authorization for administrative separation (dated Feb 01, 2002)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	20010620 – 20010926		COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  20010927		Date of Discharge:  20020207

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00 04 14  
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  none
	Confinement:		  none

Age at Entry:  18 

Years Contracted:  4 (28 month extension)

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  99

Highest Rate:  SR

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 Available

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: 

020126:	Medical evaluation by Naval Hospital, Great Lakes, Illinois.
	Applicant admitted after cutting left wrist due to flashbacks.
	AXIS I:  1. Anxiety Disorder, not otherwise specified.
		  2. Rule out Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
	AXIS II:  None
	AXIS III:  Status Post Multiple Middle Ear Infections, Bilaterally.  
	AXIS IV:  Routine Military Stressors
	AXIS V:  Global Assessment of Functioning on Day 3 of Hospitalization: 50  
	The patient’s mental illness renders him unfit for further military duty.  His mental illness will significantly interfere with his ability to function in the military.  Because of this, expeditious entry level separation is strongly recommended.  If allowed to continue on active duty, this service member will represent a continuous risk for harm to himself and/or others.
	P_ R_, MD, Resident Physician and A.V. K_, LCDR, MC, USN, Psychiatrist
	
020130:	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 an Anxiety Disorder.

020130:	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.

020201:	Commanding Officer, Recruit Training Command authorized the Applicant's discharge with an uncharacterized service by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by an anxiety disorder.  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).”

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20020207 by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment (A) with a service characterization of uncharacterized.  After a thorough review of all available the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (B and C).  

The Applicant contends the narrative reason for his separation is inappropriate, and implies that information was withheld from the recruiter.  The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant's discharge, will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted.  In the Applicant’s case the Naval Military Personnel Manual, Article 1910-130 (separation by reason of defective enlistments and inductions - erroneous enlistment) states that a member may be separated on the basis of erroneous enlistment when the enlistment would not have occurred if relevant facts had been known, and the enlistment was not the result of fraudulent conduct on the part of the member.  Hence the narrative reason assigned at discharge.  The Applicant was properly notified of his intended discharge by reason of erroneous enlistment, he elected not to consult counsel and elected to waive his rights.  The separation process was in strict compliance with the Naval Military Personnel Manual Article 1910-130.  No other narrative reason for separation could more clearly describe why the Applicant was discharged.  To change the narrative reason for separation would be inappropriate.  Relief denied.

The Applicant suggested the following separation codes would be more appropriate.  For the edification of the Applicant, the recommended codes are clearly inappropriate.  “GFN” is not an authorized code.  “HFT” is used as a result of a failure to meet established minimum physical readiness standards.  “JFM” requires a ruling by a physical evaluation board.  “JFN” requires a ruling by a medical board.  Finally, “JHD” is utilized when a member fails to complete an officer-training program.  The NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation, except to “Secretarial Authority”.  Which is not appropriate in this instance.  Relief Denied.  

The Applicant questioned the qualifications and competency of the doctors that diagnosed his anxiety disorder.  The Applicant bears the burden of presenting substantial and credible evidence to support his issue.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that the medical diagnosis was incorrect or the doctors were unqualified.  The record does document the Applicant’s admission to Great Lakes, Naval Hospital as after cutting his left wrist and both the resident physician and the psychiatrist, as staff of the Naval Hospital, are believed to be both appropriately credentialed and competent.  In the absence of documented evidence disputing the diagnosis and/or the credentials and competency of the doctors, the Board found this issue without merit.  Relief denied.  

The Applicant identified typographical errors in the Commanding Officer’s letter directing his discharge.  Based upon these errors he questions the validity of the RE code assigned.  The Board noted the incorrect data, however the letter contains the Applicant’s correct name, social security number, references to his case, and correct reason for discharge.  Based on the majority of data being correct the Board concluded that the incorrect ethnicity and enlistment date were administrative errors that did not change the Commanding Officer’s intent.  Furthermore, the Board determined that a discharge under these conditions generally results in an RE code of RE-4.  In the absence of more definitive proof that the Commanding Officer did not intend to discharge the Applicant with an RE code of RE-4, the Board presumed regularity of governmental affairs.  The Applicant bears the burden of establishing his issues through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence.  Relief denied.

The Applicant requested that his RE code be changed from RE-4 to RE-3.  For the edification of the Applicant, the NDRB has no authority to change an RE code.  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.  A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.  This issue is without merit.  Relief is not warranted.

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 documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to his discharge 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 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