Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00518
Original file (ND04-00518.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND04-00518

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20040210. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions and the reason for the discharge be changed to general. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20041022. 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 and reason for discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: UNCHARACTERIZED (ENTRY LEVEL SEPARATION)/ERRONEOUS ENTRY (OTHER), authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620280.







PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION


Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1. “THE DISCHARGE WAS INAPPROPRIATELY GIVEN BY A CORPSMAN, USING A DOCTOR’S STAMPED SIGNATURE; ALSO, THE NARRATIVE WAS IMPROPER, THE SEPARATION CODE IMPROPER AND THE REENTRY CODE UNJUST.”

2. “I WOULD LIKE TO RENTER THE MILITARY AGAIN. MY SPOUSE IS A LT. IN THE AIR FORCE RESERVES. I HAVE GRADUATED WITH A BA Degree AND AM CURRENTLY COMPLETING MY MASTER’S DEGREE IN PUBLIC HEALTH.

 PLEASE CHANGE MY SEPARATION CODE AND REENTRY CODE. ”

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Copy of Applicant’s birth certificate
Copy of Applicant’s DD214 (2)
 Copy of Applicant’s GED
 Copy of Adult Training and Development
Copy of examination results
 Copy of state DL & Security guard license
 Ltr of recommendation from R_ R_
 Ltr of recommendation from D_ C_
 Ltr of recommendation from B_ O_
Ltr of recommendation from P_ C_
Copy of transcript from Langston University
 Alpha Chi membership certificate
 Honor Roll certificate
 Copy of Bachelor of Arts degree
 Ltr of recommendation from S_ W_
Copy of transcript from Langston University (2 pages)
 Report frm J_ A_, Licensed Clinical Psychologist (6 pages)
 Honor Roll certificate
Ltr of Acceptance frm U. O. School Public Health dtd 030812
 Ltr of Acceptance frm U. O. School Public Health dtd 030813

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     961220 - 961226  COG
          Active: None
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 961227               Date of Discharge: 970115

 Length of Service (years, months, days):
         Active: 00 00 19
          Inactive: None
Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: GED                       AFQT: 56
Highest Rate: SR

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):
Performance: NMF*                 Behavior: NMF             OTA: NMF

 *No marks found in service record
Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None
Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

UNCHARACTERIZED (ENTRY LEVEL SEPARATION)/ERRONEOUS ENTRY (OTHER), authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620280.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events

 :
960229:  Applicant’s SF93 indicates a negative response to question 21 [Have you consulted or been treated by clinics, physicians, healers, or other practitioners within the past 5 years for other than minor illnesses?] There is no indication on SF93 that the Applicant received counseling in the past 5 years.

970102:  Member self referred to REU.

 970102:  Applicant diagnosis:
          AXIS II: 301.83 Borderline Personality Disorder, Sever, EPTE
         Recommendation: Entry level separation.
          Diagnosed by D_ L_, Ph. D., Clinical Psychologist
         Reviewed by C_ A_, Ph. D., Clinical Psychologist
         Medical Evaluation, Orientation includes the following: [SR stated he saw a counselor from age 14 to 16 because of the abuse.]
970109:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for uncharacterized discharge by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by an anti-social personality disorder.

970109:  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.
970110:  CO, RTC GREAT LAKES directed the Applicant's UNCHARACTERIZED discharge 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 19970115 with an entry level separation (uncharacterized) 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 and equitable (C and D).
Issue 1. On 970102, the Applicant made a voluntary statement that he had a prior history of counseling. The Board found that the documentation and statements provided for review do not refute the presumption that the Applicant deliberately misrepresented his medical history during the enlistment process, including the omission or concealment of facts which, if known at the time would have reasonably been expected to preclude, postpone, or otherwise affect the individuals eligibility for enlistment or induction. No other narrative reason other than fraudulent entry more clearly describes the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s processing for administrative separation. Relief denied.

By regulation, members discharged within the first 180 days of enlistment are given characterization of service "Uncharacterized" or entry-level separation unless there were unusual circumstances regarding performance or conduct, which would merit an "honorable" characterization. Applicant's service record did not contain any unusual circumstances during his less than one month in the military to warrant a change of discharge to "honorable." Further, 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.

Issue 2. Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reentry into the naval service or any other of the Armed Forces. The NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy or Marine Corps. Reenlistment policy of the naval service is promulgated by the Commander, Navy Recruiting Command, 5722 Integrity Drive, Bldg 784, Millington, TN 38054. Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable "RE" code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment. A request for a waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant. Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have occurred during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question. The Board discovered no impropriety after a review of Applicant’s case. There is no law or regulation, which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded, based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving naval service. The NDRB is authorized, however, to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge 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.

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. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)
A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 14, effective 03 Oct 96 until 11 Dec 97, Article 3620280, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF DEFECTIVE ENLISTMENT 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 | ND00-00386

    Original file (ND00-00386.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00386 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000203, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions and remove the reason for the discharge. Characterization of service as General is not warranted as the applicant’s active service was only 16 days. The applicant was properly processed for discharge as erroneous enlistment, however, an administrative error on the DD214 states “personality...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500070

    Original file (ND0500070.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to ‘reenlistment.’ The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20040517 with an entry level separation (uncharacterized) characterization for defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment - drug...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00346

    Original file (ND00-00346.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Erroneous Enlistment (look at Encl 2, paragraph 1, pg 1-2)2. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 970610 with an entry level separation (uncharacterized) for defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment (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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00420

    Original file (ND00-00420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00420 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000215, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions and the reason for the discharge be changed. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980929 with an Uncharacterized service (entry level separation) by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment (A). ...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00781

    Original file (ND02-00781.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00781 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020509, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. I was diagnosed with an Anti-Social Disorder which specifically states there must be a pervasive pattern or disregard for and violation of the rights of others, occurring since age fifteen years as indicated by three or more of the following (1) Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00066

    Original file (ND99-00066.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    code on my discharge papers changed to an R.E.-3 so that I may go back in Please consider me for re-enlistment into the U.S. Navy by changing the R.E. 971217: Branch Medical Clinic, Great Lakes evaluation (podiatry): Diagnosis - Pes Planus with symptoms, entry level medical separation for EPTE condition. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge and the reason for discharge was proper and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00016

    Original file (ND01-00016.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant should consult a recruiter to determine requirements for reenlistment. 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. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00594

    Original file (ND02-00594.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. I informed my recruiter of this, and he told me that since I wasn't having any problem after the concussion and if I was serious about joining then I shouldn't mention the concussion. I was told that I was going to be discharged from the military on a ELMS (Entry Level Medical Separation) and could rejoin in two years to five years.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00204

    Original file (ND01-00204.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Notification Letter to Applicant dtd Oct 6, 1999 Recruit Mental Health Substance Use Evaluation dtd Sep 23, 1999 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 990824 Date of Discharge: 991013 Length of Service (years, months,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00650

    Original file (ND99-00650.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 970821 with an entry level separation (uncharacterized) for defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment (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 the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found this to be a non-decisional issue. You...