Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00663
Original file (ND00-00663.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AR, USN
Docket No. ND00-00663

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 000426, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing discharge review before the board in the Washington National Capital Region. The applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, the applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 010104. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety but did discern inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service. The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall change. The discharge shall change to: HONORABLE /Erroneous enlistment - enlisted, reenlisted, extended, or inducted in error), authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620280.


PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1. The discharge is improper because it was based on one isolated incident which although was not provided in writing, my condition was provided verbally.

2. The discharge is improper because in the time I served, I had no other adverse action.

3. The discharge is improper because no proper alternatives were given to me while my spouse was medically unable to care for herself.

4. The discharge is improper because I never, would never, or have ever dishonored my country in any way.

5. With all respect, I am asking the board to review my records and my statements and to weigh the options towards me obtaining an Honorable Discharge.

6. With all respect, I am asking the board to review my records and my statements, and to weigh the options towards me obtaining a change in my Re-Enlistment Code. As I am now much more mature and responsible for my actions, I wish to obtain an opportunity to Re-Enlist and serve my country with pride and/or be allowed to qualify for Federal Law Enforcement positions. I can only do this by obtaining a change in my Re-Enlistment Code; perhaps upgraded from a four (4) to a two (2) if possible.

7. With all respect, I feel that my time served should not reflect improperly as a four.

Applicant marked the box I HAVE LISTED ADDITIONAL ISSUES AS AN ATTACHMENT TO THIS APPLICATION. Additional issues were not found in case folder.


 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214 (2 copies)
Statement from applicant dated April 24, 2000 (2 copies)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     900924 - 910904  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 910905               Date of Discharge: 920706

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 10 02
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 31

 Highest Rate: AR

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NOB                           Behavior: 2.80 (1)                OTA: NOB

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Erroneous enlistment - enlisted, reenlisted, extended, or inducted in error, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620280.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :
900924:  Report of Medical Examination upon entry: Applicant failed to disclose history of asthma after age 12.

920508:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with an under honorable conditions (general) by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by your failure to reveal asthma which disqualifies you for your guaranteed "AC" School. It has been determined by medical authorities that this condition existed prior to entry into the naval service.
920508:  Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

920511:  Commanding officer recommended discharge with an under honorable conditions (general) by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment. Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim): Airman Recruit (AR) (applicant) perpetrated a fraudulent enlistment when he entered the naval service by failure to divulge asthma which is a disqualifying factor for his guaranteed Air Traffic Control School. It has been determined by medical authorities that this condition existed prior to entry into the naval service. In my opinion he has no potential for future active naval service; therefore, I recommend separation with a General discharge by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to fraudulent entry into the naval service....

920629:  BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge with an under honorable conditions (general) by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT
REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 920706 with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge for defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment (A). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper but inequitable (C and D).

After a review of the applicant’s service record and other evidence presented to the NDRB, in conjunction with consideration of the factors listed in paragraph 9.3 of reference (A), it was determined that relief is warranted under equitable grounds. The reason for discharge shall remain the same.

 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 9, effective 15 Aug 91 until 4 Mar 93, Article 3620280, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF DEFECTIVE ENLISTMENTS AND INDUCTIONS - ERRONEOUS ENLISTMENT.

B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

C. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

D. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.

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 " afls14.jag.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:

                  Naval Council of Personnel Boards
                  Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board
                  720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
                  Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5023      


Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00371

    Original file (ND00-00371.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 940629 with an entry level separation (uncharacterized) for defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment - drug abuse(A). 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01368

    Original file (ND03-01368.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01368 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030815. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Commanding Officer recommended separation by reason of fraudulent enlistment and convenience of the government due to a diagnosed personality disorder.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01247

    Original file (ND99-01247.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-01247 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990927, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 881024 with an entry level separation for defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment (A). PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00790

    Original file (ND00-00790.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 971117 with an entry level separation (uncharacterized) for defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment - drug abuse(A). 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 (C and D).In response to the applicant’s issue concerning a change in...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00846

    Original file (ND00-00846.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00846 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000622, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980203 with an uncharacterized service for defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment (A). Even though the applicant may have received a waiver for his ankle, the fact remains that the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00816

    Original file (ND00-00816.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 010111. When he told me I can do this request I became very excited as this provides me another chance to achieve my dreams and goals with the U.S. Navy. I hope that you can see my desire in wanting to serve and allow me the chance to correct my mistakes and prove to the navy that I can be an excellent sailor.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00167

    Original file (ND01-00167.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00167 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001127, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation Only the service and medical records were reviewed, as the applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00488

    Original file (ND03-00488.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Because of this honest disclosure I was referred to the Recruit Evaluation Unit (REU) for mental health evaluation. I was assigned to Recruit Training division 132, Ship #3 and began my recruit training.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00725

    Original file (ND01-00725.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00725 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010430, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and reason for discharge be changed to RE-1. In support of my request for an upgrade in my discharge, please not the attached medical narrative from Dr. H____ and the results of the examination from St. Luke's. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :990420: Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00756

    Original file (ND01-00756.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I think my discharge should be changed on the fact that I was young and irresponsible. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 000208 with an Entry level separation (Uncharacterized) for defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment - alcohol abuse (A). 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...