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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-AN, USN
Docket No. ND06-00387

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20051222.  The Applicant requests the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed.  The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing before the Board in the Washington National Capital Region.  In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.  The Applicant designated American Legion as the representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20061116.  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 narrative reason for discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain Uncharacterized by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to fraudulent entry.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

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

“It is my understanding that uncharaactized discharge states that service in the military was less than 180 days.  I would appreciate if that can be stated on my DD214 so the potential employer understands the meaning of uncharacterized.  Please see the attached.”

“I am requesting a change in narrative reason for separation because I in fact had notification from my neurologist that stated it was ok for me to enlist in the armed forces.  I obtained this letter on my own prior to enlistment because I had knowledge that it would be needed based on reading the Navy enlistment medical requirement materials.  I was unjustly advised and persuaded by my recruiter to lie and not disclose the information during enlistment in fear of not being able to join the Navy and proudly serve my country.  I do not feel this letter provided by my neurologist to the US Navy was considered during my separation.

I joined the Navy because I wanted to be a part the great men and women that protect our country.  I joined the Navy because I witnessed terrorism against our country first hand and was determined to fight back.  I in no way joined the Navy with the intent to purposely fraud or deceive.  I have a great admire for the US Armed forces and I know that in my short time in the Navy, I worked hard and proud until the very day I was separated and sent home.  I believe my Navy record can show that I did well during my short time in the service with no reprimands.  I believe this should be taken into consideration.

I feel that I am being unnecessarily sentenced to a complete lifetime of unsuccessfulness in both my professional and economical growth due to section 28 (Narrative reason for separation) on my DD 214 long form.  This negative implication has resulted in my inability to progress in any career goals for nearly four years.  I believe punishment for my error in judgment has been undoubtedly accomplished.  I am only 26 years old and I have a whole life of goals and dreams to aspire for ahead of me.  Granting me a new non hindering narrative reason for separation would be ideal for me to move on in both life and success.”

Representative submitted no issues.

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 4)
Official Change Duty Orders, Department of the Navy Enlisted Personnel Management Center, dtd April 09, 2002 (4 pages)
Itinerary/Invoice, dtd May 15, 2002 (2 pages)
Applicant’s Enlisted Activity Gain (7 pages)
Applicant’s Travel Voucher (3 pages)
Recommendation for Administrative Separation, dtd July 15, 2002 (2 pages)
Administrative Discharge from Commanding Officer, USS GEORGE WASHINGTON (CVN 73), dtd July 20, 2002
Character Reference ltr from W_ L_, Revenue Manager, W_ S_ District Hotel, dtd December 6, 2005 
Character Reference ltr from J_ F_, dtd December 6, 2005
Ltr from S_ S_, MD, PhD, Professor, of Neurology and Pediatrics, Director, Epilepsy Management Center, dtd February 14, 2002
Ltr from S_ S_, MD, PhD, Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics, dtd June 15, 2000
Ltr from S_ S_, MD, PhD, Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics, dtd January 06, 2000
Ltr from S_ S_, MD, PhD, Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics, dtd November 23, 1998
Ltr from S_ S_, MD, PhD, Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics, dtd July 09, 1998
Ltr from S_ S_, MD, PhD, Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics, dtd February 26, 1998
Ltr from S_ S_, MD, PhD, Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics, dtd February 9, 1995
Ltr from S_ S_, MD, PhD, Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics, dtd May 19, 1994
Ltr from S_ S_, MD, PhD, Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics, dtd November 11, 1993
Ltr from S_ S_, MD, PhD, Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics, dtd June 10, 1993
Ltr from S_ S_, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics, dtd July 30, 1992
Ltr from S_ S_, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics, dtd February 11, 1993
Ltr from S_ S_, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics, dtd November 5, 1992
Ltr from M. A_, Secy. to Dr. S_, dtd March 5, 1992
Ltr from M. A_, Secy. to Dr. S_, dtd October 7, 1991 (2)
Ltr from S_ S_, MD, PhD, Professor, of Neurology and Pediatrics, dtd November 14, 1979
Ltr from S_ S_, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics, dtd October 07, 1991 and October 08, 1991
Ltr from S_ S_, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics, dtd July 8, 1991
Ltr from S_ S_, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics, dtd May 6, 1991
Ltr from S_ S_, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics, dtd March 4, 1991 (2 pages)
Ltr from S_ S_, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics, dtd January 3, 1991 (2 pages)
Ltr from S_ S_, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics, dtd September 13, 1990 (2 pages)
Ltr from S_ S_, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics, dtd October 25, 1990
Ltr from S_ S_, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics, dtd September 14, 1990
Ltr from S_ S_, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics, dtd September 13, 1990
Ltr from S_ S_, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics, dtd September 13, 1990 (first page only)
Montefiore/AECOM Pediatric Neurology Department follow-up visit, dtd September 9, (year illegible)
Montefiore/AECOM Pediatric Neurology Department follow-up visit, dtd January 8, 1998
Montefiore/AECOM Pediatric Neurology Department follow-up visit, dtd November 5, 1992
Montefiore/AECOM Pediatric Neurology Department follow-up visit, dtd November 14, 1991
Montefiore/AECOM Pediatric Neurology Department follow-up visit, dtd March 19, 1992
Ltr from American Legion, R. S_, Military Review Boards, Representative, December 13, 2005

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	20020205 - 20020303	COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  20020304		Date of Discharge:  20020806

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00 05 03  
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  None
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  22

Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12+ (college)		AFQT:  50

Highest Rate:  AN

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):  National Defense Service Medal

*Not Available 

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

UNCHARACTERIZED/FRAUDULENT ENTRY INTO MILITARY SERVICE, authority:  MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-134 (formerly 3630100).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

020205:	Report of Medical History, Purpose of Examination: Enlistment.  Question 15b, “Have you ever had or do you now have frequent or severe headache”:  Applicant checked “no” block.

020628:	Medical entry:  LT G_ W_, PA-C, MSC, USNR:  22 year old male complains of migraine headache since early yesterday.  Has (illegible) migraines diagnosed at age 4 (illegible).  Then switched to (illegible).  Has been taking ever since.  Stopped taking right before entrance to bootcamp.  (Illegible)
	A:  Migraine
	P:  Discuss with SMO about disposition
	SMO, CDR U_ notes:  Seen and agree. 
1)	Start (illegible) channel blocks
2)	Fraudulent enlistment < 6 months.

020702:	Senior Medical Officer, USS George Washington (CVN 73), CDR J_ T. U_, nominates AN R_ (Applicant) for an entry level administrative separation due to Fraudulent/Erroneous Enlistment by making false statements at the time of enlistment or not disclosing his complete medical history.  SNM reported to the USS George Washington on or about 020526 following Service School at Great Lakes Naval Training Command with 3 months CAD.  On 020628 he reported to USS George Washington medical department and was diagnosed with a severe migraine headache.  He required treatment including Imitrex injection and SIQ.  During the history collection phase of the interview, SNM (Applicant) admitted to having chronic migraine headaches intermittently over the preceding 10 years.  Moreover, was followed by a Neurologist since the age of 9, and a complete work-up was completed with the diagnosis of migraine headaches, per the patient.  Preventive therapy was initiated at age ten.  There is no recommended therapy to eliminate his condition.  He was evaluated by LT Wright PA-C and myself today and was advised that since his condition existed prior to enlistment and he did not disclose the preexisting condition of migraine headaches prior to enlistment, that his enlistment was actually fraudulent or erroneous.  He agreed.  The Manual of the Medial Department, CH 15-51, on enlistment standards states clearly that “The cases for rejection for appointment, enlistment, or induction are…headaches of all types of sufficient severity or frequency that interfere with normal function in the past 3 years.”  While causes for rejection differ after enlistment, he would have required a waiver or been rejected at enlistment…SNM (Applicant) understands and agrees with findings.
	
020704:	Medical entry:  LT J_ P_, MC, USN:  23 year old male follow up for migraine headache.  (Illegible).  Defer disposition/fraudulent enlistment to SMO.  Follow up pm.

020710:	Medical entry:  LT G_ A. W_, PA-C, MSC, USNR:  Single white 23 year old male follow up for migraine headaches.  Last headache two weeks ago, before that was 4 months prior.  Has been diagnosed/treated for migraines prior to enlistment/entrance to Navy.  Was given (illegible) since age 10.  Requires refill of this med as preventative.  Was advised by Dr. P_ that it may not be indicated now.
	A:  Migraine headaches by history
1.	Await Health Record from civilians
2.	Follow up with SMO concerning disposition in Navy.

020713:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as entry level by reason of fraudulent entry into Naval Service as evidenced by failure to disclose long history of migraine headaches when completing the Report of Medical History on 020205.

020713:	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.

020715:	Legal Officer, USS GEORGE WASHINGTON (CVN 73), recommended to Commanding Officer, USS GEORGE WASHINGTON (CVN 73) that the Applicant be discharged by reason of fraudulent enlistment as evidenced by his failure to disclose his long history of migraine headaches when completing the Report of Medical History on 020205.  Comments:  “AN R_ (Applicant) reported on board GEORGE WASHINGTON on 15 June 2002.  Approximately 13 days later he reported to the ship’s medical department and was diagnosed with severe migraine headaches.  He required treatment including Imitrex injections and sick in quarters (SIQ).  He admitted to the Senior Medical Officer that he had chronic migraine headaches intermittently over the preceding 10 years.  After being diagnosed with migraine headaches at the age of nine preventative therapy was initiated at age 10.  AN R_ failed to disclose this information at the time of his enlistment.  I recommend that AN R_ be separated from the Naval service with an entry level separation.”

020715:	Applicant found physically fit for separation.

020720:	Commanding Officer, USS GEORGE WASHINGTON (CVN 73), authorized the Applicant's entry level discharge by reason of fraudulent entry.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20020806 by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to fraudulent entry (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 Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (D).

The Applicant contends that his failure to disclose his history of migraines during the enlistment process was the result of misrepresentations by his recruiter.  The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs.  The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of 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 recruiter misled him through the recruitment process.  The evidence the Applicant submitted overwhelmingly demonstrates that he clearly did know of his medical condition and failed to disclose it.  Fraudulent Entry best describes the reason for the Applicant’s discharge.  No other Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describe why the Applicant was discharged.  The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.   Relief denied.  

The NDRB does not have the authority to amend the Applicant’s DD 214 to state that service in the military was less than 180 days, as requested by the Applicant.  For the Applicant’s benefit, the Board notes that 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 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.

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 of his claims 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 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 5420.174D 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.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs.

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