ex-SR, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20090728
Characterization of Service Received:  
Narrative Reason for Discharge:  
Authority for Discharge:  MILPERSMAN 

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:	
	Narrative Reason change to:	ENTRY LEVEL PERFORMANCE/CONDUCT

Summary of Service
Prior Service:
Inactive:	USNR (DEP)	20000427 - 20000516  	Active:	  19980112-19980202  ELS

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  20000517	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20000721	Highest Rank/Rate:  SR
Length of Service:   Year(s)     Month(s)   05 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  37
Evaluation Marks:	Performance:  NFIR	Behavior:  NFIR	OTA:  NFIR

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	NONE

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJP:  		SCM:  		SPCM:  		CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

	  “1910-130 ERRONEOUS ENTRY (OTHER)”
	
The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed
Related to Military Service:	
                                         DD 214:		Service/Medical Record:		Other Records:	

Related to Post-Service Period:	
	Employment:		Finances:		Education/Training:	
	Health/Medical Records:		Substance Abuse:		Criminal Records:	
	Family/Personal Status:		Community Service:		References:	
              Additional Statements:
                             From Applicant:		From/To Representation:		From/To Congress member:	
                    Other Documentation:	

Pertinent Regulation/Law
A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 24, effective 20 May 1999 until
12 June 2001, Article 1910-130, 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 II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs, Part V, Para 502, Propriety and Para 503, Equity.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	Applicant desires upgrade for re-enlistment and to increase job opportunities.
2.	Applicant desires upgrade to obtain VA benefits.
3.	Applicant contends his recruiter told him not to admit to MEPS a pre-existing motor vehicle accident-related back injury and that his discharge and RE code were inequitable since he committed no misconduct at boot camp.

Decision

Date:  20100923		Location:  Washington D.C.	Representation:  

By a vote of  the Characterization shall  .
By a vote of  the Narrative Reason shall  .

Discussion

The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.  In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  The Applicant identified two non-decisional issues and one decisional issue for the Board’s consideration.  The Board completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to  discharge and the discharge process to ensure  discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.  The Applicant’s record of service did not contain any NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warnings, Non-Judicial Punishments, courts-martial, or civilian convictions.  The Board noted that the records reflected the Applicant had been previously separated from Marine Corps boot camp on 2 February 1998 due to entry level performance and conduct.  Additionally, the record showed the Applicant was diagnosed with Avoidant Personality Disorder at Navy boot camp and was subsequently processed for administrative separation due to Erroneous Entry on 21 July 2000.  When notified of administrative separation processing using the  procedure on 17 July 2000, the Applicant waived  rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement of rebuttal, and request a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review.

:  (Nondecisional) The Applicant desires an upgrade for re-enlistment eligibility, to increase job opportunities, and to obtain VA benefits.  Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, the NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code.  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records can make changes to reenlistment codes.  Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.  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.  In reference to the upgrade request to increase employment opportunities, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.  Lastly, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining veterans benefits, and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.

:  (Decisional) (Propriety/Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant contends his recruiter told him not to admit to MEPS a pre-existing motor vehicle accident- related back injury and that his discharge and RE code were inequitable since he committed no misconduct at boot camp.  The Applicant was discharged on 21 July 2000 after 2 months and 5 days of active duty by reason of Erroneous Entry into military service.  Per the regulations, a member may be separated on the basis of erroneous enlistment when the enlistment would not have occurred if relevant facts had been known or had appropriate directives been followed and the enlistment was not the result of fraudulent conduct on the part of the member.  Conversely, members may be separated for effecting a Fraudulent Enlistment by falsely representing or deliberately concealing any disqualifications.  The Applicant contends at the time of his separation that the recruiter directed him to not disclose the back injury if he was not experiencing pain or difficulty from the injury.  Though the NDRB is not an investigative body, it found this to be a likely scenario and accepted this as the reason for the Applicant’s failure to fully disclose the injury on his pre-enlistment medical history disclosure form (SF 93).  Nevertheless, the Applicant was separated from the Navy for Erroneous Enlistment, which is correct after accounting for his existing Avoidant Personality Disorder and his previous disclosure to the recruiter of the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.  The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.  In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  The Applicant’s service and medical records clearly indicate he was unable to perform to Navy standards, refused to train (per SF 600, 13 Jul 2000), and stated his desire to return home.  To re-emphasize, an Erroneous Enlistment is not considered to be a negative discharge, as opposed to a Fraudulent Enlistment.

An Uncharacterized characterization of service description shall be used when separation is initiated while a service member is in an entry level status (within the first 180 days of continuous active duty service), except when separation is for certain prescribed situations (none of which apply to the Applicant) in which circumstances warrant characterization as Under Other Than Honorable conditions, or when characterization of service as Honorable is clearly warranted by the presence of unusual circumstances involving personal conduct and performance of military duty and is approved on a case-by-case basis by the Secretary of the Navy.  The Applicant's service record did not indicate any unusual circumstances of personal conduct or performance of duty during his less than 3 months in the military that would clearly warrant an Honorable characterization of service.  Furthermore, with respect to non-service related administrative matters, i.e. Department of Veterans Affairs benefits, civilian employment, etc., an Uncharacterized separation shall be considered the equivalent of an Honorable or General characterization.

Summary:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service,  record entries, and administrative separation process, the Board found   Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall   and the narrative reason for separation shall remain .

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of  discharge.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically the paragraphs titled Additional Reviews, Automatic Upgrades, and Post-Service Conduct.

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

Complaint Procedures:  If you believe 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 Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Instruction to the Joint Service Review Activity, OUSD (P&R) PI-LP, The Pentagon, Washington, DC  20301-4000.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the Instruction 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 Instruction 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “http://Boards.law.af.mil.”

Additional Reviews:  After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s 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.  There are veterans organizations such as the American Legion and the Disabled American Veterans that are willing to provide guidance to former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade.  If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted their opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100 for further review.

Service Benefits:  The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining veterans benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.

Employment/Educational Opportunities:  The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.

Reenlistment/RE-code:  Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, the NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code.  Only the BCNR can make changes to reenlistment codes.  Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.  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.

Medical Conditions and Misconduct:  DoD disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation.  Appropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons.  Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board, and is processed subsequently for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings.  If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct or for any basis wherein an Other Than Honorable discharge is authorized, the medical board report is filed in the member’s terminated health record.  Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or other medical related reasons.  Only the BCNR can grant this type of narrative reason change.

Automatic Upgrades - There is no law or regulation that provides for an unfavorable discharge to be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct subsequent to leaving naval service.  

Post-Service Conduct:  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board reviews.  Documentation to support a post-service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s birth certificates (if applicable); character witness statements; documentation of community or church service; certification of non-involvement with civil authorities; evidence of financial stability or letters of good standing from banks, credit card companies, or other financial institutions; attendance at or completion of higher education (official transcripts); and documentation of a drug-free lifestyle.   The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate  in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

Issues Concerning Bad-Conduct Discharges (BCD): Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts, issues relating to the Applicant’s innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief.  With respect to a discharge adjudged by a special court-martial, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency.  Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed.  The NDRB does not have the jurisdictional authority to review a discharge or dismissal resulting from a general court-martial.

Board Membership:  The names and votes of the members of the NDRB 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