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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-AA, USN
Docket No. ND06-00265

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20051130.  The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.  

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20061005.  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: 

“On approximately 07-08-98, I was informed that I was being transferred to separations pending a hearing in regards to a discrepancy in my application.  I was placed into the custody of the petty officer/M.P. and transferred to “separations”.  As I continued to try to stay in the service, I started to work for the Director of Base operations; as PN2 Y_ assistant.  I continued to work and maintain my military bearing and be a contribution to the Navy, despite the fact that the Navy wanted to discharge me for a minor discrepancy in my application regarding a previous arrest.  
Upon my enlistment in Hilo and Honolulu, Hawaii, the recruiting officer had done a NCIC background check and we made waivers on all that seemed to impend me from being able to join the service in the first place.  This took place at the Naval base in Honolulu as we were being reviewed for our physical ability and the test scores from some test we took there.  Later we were sworn in and placed on delayed entry for 05-13-98.  It was to my recruiters, his superior, and my understanding that I was cleared for service, and all past arrest history was waived.  I was devastated upon being informed of this being a reason for discharge.  I fought it and continued to serve as best my ability throughout the following two to three months of separations process and hearing took place until 09-04-98. I respectfully request reconsideration for my discharge upgrade status from “other” to “honorable” in light of the information provided.
	Thank you for your time and consideration in this all important matter.
Sincerely, 
[printed]  T_ L. G_ (Applicant)”

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the attached letter: 

“Dear Sir or Madam,
	The following issues are the reasons I believe my discharge should be upgraded to Honorable.  If you disagree, please explain in detail why you disagree.  The presumption of regularity that might normally permit you to assume that the service acted correctly in characterizing my service as less than honorable does not apply to my case because of the evidence I am submitting:

1)  Clemency is warranted because it is an injustice for me to suffer the adverse consequences of a bad discharge.
2)  Under current standards, I would not receive the type of discharge that I did.
3)  My average conduct and efficiency ratings/behavior and proficiency marks were good.
4)  I received letters of recommendation.
5)  There were other acts of merit.
6)  Personal problems impaired my ability to serve.
7)  There was a waiver of moral standards when I enlisted; those preservice problems impaired my ability to serve.
8)  I tried to serve and wanted to, but wasn’t able to.
I thank you for your consideration of the above listed reasons and I pray that it will shed some light on this issue to help you make an informed decision on my case.

Sincerely, 

[printed]  T_ L. G_ (Applicant)”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214  (Service 2)
Ltr from Applicant, dtd March 13, 2006  (2 pages)
Applicant’s permanent Record from Modesto Junior College, dtd March 06, 2006
Work Supervisor’s Report, dtd February 01, 2006
Transcript Request, dtd March 6, 2006
Applicant’s DD Form 214  (Service 2)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	19980331 - 19980511	COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  19980512		Date of Discharge:  19980904

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  03  22  
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  None
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  27

Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12 + (College)		AFQT:  53

Highest Rate:  AA

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: 

980727:	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 fraudulent enlistment as evidenced by undisclosed pre-service civil involvement/convictions.

980727:	Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel, elected to submit a statements and elected to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.  Applicant request for a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review.

980820:	Commanding Officer, Recruit Training Command, Great Lakes,  recommended to Commander, Naval Training Center, Great Lakes that the Applicant be discharged with an entry level separation by reason of defective enlistment and induction into the naval service due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by undisclosed pre-service civil involvement/convictions.  Commanding Officer’s comments:  “As evidenced by enclosure (3) (Copy of DD Form 1966), an erroneous enlistment has occurred.  I recommend separation from the naval service with an Entry Level Separation.”

980828:	Commander, Naval Training Center, Great Lakes concurs with Commanding Officer, Recruit Training Command, Great Lakes, that the Applicant be discharged with an entry level separation.    

980904:	DD Form 214: Applicant discharged with an uncharacterized (entry level separation) by reason of erroneous entry.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19980904 by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment (A) with a service characterization of uncharacterized.  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).  

The Applicant states “It was to my recruiters, his superior, and my understanding that I was cleared for service, and all past arrest history was waived.”  The Applicant implies that his erroneous entry was the result of misrepresentation by his recruiter.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that the recruiter intentionally mislead him through the recruitment process.  The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.  Relief denied.

The Applicant states “under current standards, I would not receive the type of discharge that I did.”  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 4 months in the military to warrant a change of discharge to honorable.

In response to the Applicant’s issue,  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.
  
In response to the Applicant’s issue, the Applicant’s service record did not contain any letters of recommendation, conduct and efficiency ratings/behavior and proficiency marks, or any documents proving other acts of merit. 

The Applicant contends that personal problems impaired his ability to serve.  While he may feel that his personal problems impaired his ability to serve, the evidence of record did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  Relief denied.

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 additional evidence related to this discharge.  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 18, effective 12 Dec 97 until 12 Jun 01, 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