D E P A R T M E N T  O F  T H E  N A V  
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD 

WASHINGTON DC  20370-5100  1 

2 NAVY ANNEX 

ELP 
Docket No.  1830-99 
13 August 1999 

From:  Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records 
To : 
Subj:  REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF 0 

Secretary of the Navy 

Ref: 

(a) 10 U.S.C.1552 

Encl:  (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments 

(2) Case Summary 
(3) Subject's  naval record 

t 

I 

i 

1.  Pursuant to the provisions of reference  (a) , Petitioner, a 
former enlisted member of the United States Navy, applied to 
this Board requesting, in effect, that hi  reenlistment code be 
changed. 

2.  The Board, consisting of Mr.  Pfeiffer, Ms. Gilbert, and Ms. 
LeBlanc, reviewed Petitioner's allegation  of error and 
injustice on 11 August 1999, and pursuant to its regulations, 
determined that the corrective action ind'cated below should be 
taken on the available evidence of record.  Documentary material 
considered by  the Board consisted of the  nclosures, naval 
records, and applicable statutes, regulat'ons and policies. 

3.  The Board, having reviewed all the fadts of record 
pertaining to Petitioner's  allegations of error and injustice 
finds as follows: 

a.  Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all 

administrative remedies available under e isting law and 
regulations within the Department of the k v y  . 

Enclosure  (1) was filed in a timely manner. 

c.  Petitioner enlisted in the Navy on 26 March  1998 for 

four years at age 18.  At an unknown date while in recruit 
training, Petitioner was evaluated for su stance abuse and 
dependency.  During the interview, Petiti ner reported that he 

had used alcohol two to three times per week since 8th or 9th 
grade.  His first use of alcohol was at age 12 and last use was 
on 25 March 1998.  He also stated he would drink beer to get 
over a "hangover", used larger amounts ove  longer periods than 
intended, and was unsuccessful in control1 ng his use of 
alcohol. 

d.  On 8 May 1998, Petitioner was informed that he had been 

found to be drug/alcohol dependent and was not eligible for 
level I11 inpatient treatment.  Thereafter, he was notified that 
administrative separation was being considered by reason of 
defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment 
as evidenced by a medical evaluation of alcohol dependence and 
an anti-social personality disorder.  However, available records 
contain no psychiatric evaluation diagnosi g a personality 
disorder.  Petitioner was advised of his p ocedural rights, 
declined to consult with counsel, and 
his case reviewed by the general 
authority . 

d the right to have 
ial convening 

e.  On 11 May  1998, the discharge authority directed that 

Petitioner's  enlistment be voided and he was so separated by 
reason of llerroneous enlistment-alcohol abuse1' on 14 May  1998. 
At that time, he was not recommended for reenlistment and was 
assigned an RE-4  reenlistment code. 

f.  The DD Form 214 issued on ~etitioher's separation has 
all zeros entered in the record of service section  (block 12). 
It states in the remarks section  (block 18)  "Entered: 9 8 W 6  
Released: 98MAY14.  Enlistment Void.  This release does not 
constitute a discharge and a discharge certificate has not been 
issued. l' 

g.  The Board is aware that Federal lhw requires that an 

enlistment be voided if an individual is determined to be drug 
or alcohol dependent.  However, the law requires that the 
testing and evaluation to determine dependence be conducted 
within 72 hours of reporting to the initial period of active 
duty.  If an individual's  enlistment is not voided, but 
separated within 180 days of beginning active service, an 
uncharacterized entry level separation is normally issued. 

h.  The Board is also aware that an individual can be 

separated due to an erroneous enlistment if there is a condition 

which, had it been known prior to enlistment, would have 
prevented enlistment.  Alcohol dependence is such a condition. 
The regulation requires the assignment of an RE-4  reenlistment 
code to individuals discharged by reason of "erroneous 
enlistment-alcohol abuse. l1 

i.  Petitioner states that he did not erroneously enlist 

nor does he have an alcohol problem.  He s ates that he wanted 

to be discharged and alleges the psycholog f st told him that if 

he said he had a drinking problem he could be discharged 
quickly. 

CONCLUSION: 

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the 
Board concludes that Petitioner's  request warrants partial 
favorable action.  The Board believes that Petitioner's 
enlistment could properly have been voided if the diagnosis of 
alcohol dependence had been made within 72 hours, as required by 
law.  Whether or not Petitioner was so dia nosed cannot be 
absolutely determined from the dependency  creening evaluation 
filed in the record because it is undated.  However, since 

Petitioner was not informed that he was fo 1 nd to be alcohol 

dependent until 42 days after his enlistment, the Board does not 
believe that the diagnosis of dependence was within the time 
limits prescribed by law.  Therefore, the Board concludes that 
Petitioner's  enlistment was inappropriately voided, and that the 
record should be corrected to show that he was separated with an 
uncharacterized entry level separation by  eason of erroneous 

enlistment.  The DD Form 214 should also b k  corrected to show 

the appropriate dates and computation of service in block  12, 
and the remarks regarding the void enlistment in block  18 should 
be removed. 

I 

Concerning the reenlistment code, the Board notes that 
regulations require the assignment of an RE-4  reenlistment code 
when an individual is separated by reason of erroneous 
enlistment due to alcohol abuse.  The Board also notes 
Petitioner claims he lied about a drinking problem in order to 
get discharged.  Providing false information in order to be 
discharged is tantamount to fraud.  The Board is not sympathetic 
to individuals who obtain discharges through fraudulent means. 
Further, the Board has no way of determining what his true 
statement is, the one he is making now, or the statements he 

made to extricate himself from his military commitment.  It is 
well established in law that an individual who perpetrates fraud 
in order to be discharged should not benef't from the fraud when 
it is later discovered.  Accordingly, the  oard concluded that 
the reenlistment code was proper and no change is warranted. 

B 

In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an 
injustice warranting the following corrective action. 

RECOMMENDATION : 

I 

a.  That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by issuing 

him a new DD Form 214 which reflects that he served on active 
duty from 26 March 1998 to 14 May 1998 and on the latter date he 
received an uncharacterized entry level separation by  reason of 
erroneous enlistment. 

That no other relief be granted. 

relating to the Board's  recommendation be 1 orrected, removed or 

c.  That any material or entries inco sistent with or 

completely expunged from Petitioner's  record and that no such 
entries or material be added to the record in the future. 

d.  That any material directed to be  removed from 

Petitioner's  naval record be returned to the Board, together 
with a copy of this Report of Proceedings, for retention in a 
confidential file maintained for such purpose, with no cross 
references being made a part of Petitioner's naval record. 

4.  It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's 
review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and 
complete record of the Board's  proceedings in the above entitled 
matter. 

ROBERT D.  ZSALMAN 
Recorder 

Acting Recorder 

5.  Pursuant to the 
6 (e) of the revised 

delegation of authority set out in Section 
Procedures of the Boa-+ for Correction of 

Naval  Records  (32  Code  o f   Federal  Regulations,  Section  723.6 
( e ) )  and  having  assured  compliance  with  i t s  provisions,  i t  i s  
hereby  announced  t h a t   the  foregoing  corrective  a c t i o n ,   taken 
under  the  authority  o f   reference  ( a ) ,  has  been  approved  by  the 
Board  on  behalf  o f   the  Secretary  o f   the  Naw.