Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00812
Original file (ND04-00812.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-PNSN, USN
Docket No. ND04-00812

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20040419. The Applicant requests the narrative reason for separation be changed to “ Erroneous Enlist. ” The Applicant requests a documentary record review. The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20041008. 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 4 to 1 that the narrative reason for separation shall not change. The discharge shall remain: HONORABLE/FRAUDULENT ENTRY INTO MILITARY SERVICE, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-134 (formerly 3630100).








PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1. “I would like to be considered for a different separation code and RE- code. I have enclosed a brief letter in addition to paperwork from my service record to help support my case. Thank you for your time.

 Dear Sir or Madame;

My name is J_ M_ ( Applicant ) (Social Security number deleted) and I am a former member of the Navy (active duty). It was my intentions upon joining the Navy of acquiring skills that would last a lifetime while dutifully serving my country. Before arriving to RTC, I was signed up for the CTI rating; it was also at RTC that a thorough background investigation would be done on myself. And so I spoke with an investigator in Chicago and he explained to me that because of my financial debts, I would not qualify for the CTI rating. This is when I was given the option of cross rating to the PN rate. I have enclosed a copy of the page 13 entry disqualifying me from the CTI rating due to financial debts (document 1). Also at this time nothing was mentioned to me about fraudulent entry in the Navy due to adverse financial information.

My first command in the Navy would he NAVSTA San Diego and I looked forward to working at my first command. I must admit that I had a difficult time adjusting to the Navy culture but I would soon learn the benefits of obeying orders to complete a task at hand. My duties consisted of providing custome service to enlisted and officer service members by informing them of various educational and financial benefits . I enrolled service members and their dependents into DEERS (a military database.), I processed travel claims and gained service members to their ultimate duty station with 97% accuracy, I assisted enlisted service members in their commissioning programs with al00% accuracy, I organized and maintained thousands of personnel records including pay documents and I entered and retrieved personnel information using an automated information system. The benefits of joining the Navy were paying off and I was starting to feel like I was apart of something really great. Whenever I had time, I would volunteer at various command function activities. I participated in a Halloween Carnival at Chollas Elementary, I volunteered for several Special Olympics tournaments, and I would also coordinate food and clothes drive for the areas economically disadvantaged. I received numerous Bravo Zulus and Hard Charger of the Month awards for the service provided. I have enclosed copies of letters of appreciation from various organizations. My time at PSD was about to come to an end as my tour was from August 6, 2001-August 2, 2003. After having a hard time finding orders to my next command, I was finally able to negotiate orders to the USS ASHLAND in Virginia Beach, VA. Initially, I was suppose to transfer in August but because of funds, I was scheduled to transfer in November 2003. Even though I expressed concerns about my daughter’s schooling, it was to no avail. In March 2003 I received a letter from my AOIC stating that my security clearance would be denied based on my financial debts. He stated that basically if I wanted to make the Navy a career, the security clearance might effect my advancement. I was told that there was nothing to worry about but I still decided to respond to that letter. I have enclosed a copy of the letter and my response (document 2). On May 13, 2003, I had received an email version of my orders from PSD transfer clerk PN1 J_ and so I looked forward to transferring in November. On May 16,1 received the administration separation processing notification paperwork.

No one gave me any indication that my financial debt was so bad that I would have to be admin separated out of the Navy. I would like to state again that I know my financial debts may make me appear to be financially irresponsible but I had tried to clear those debts I was aware of in a reasonable manner. A JAG Officer advised me to appeal to my command for an admin sep waiver. I wrote a lengthy letter appealing to my command for a waiver but it was not granted because my command stated that I took too much leave (doc 3). If my leave was a problem then why did my command approve of the leave? I have enclosed copies of all leave chits approved by my command (document 4). I spoke with other OIC’s of other commands and they stated why don’t your command let you consolidate your debt so that you can clear you debt in a timely fashion but too no avail. I was kicked out of the Navy for having bad credit. There was no concern for my daughter’s or my well being. I feel as though the time I invested in the Navy by giving my all when needed was of no use. I feel that if my credit was that bad that while I was at RTC someone should have informed me of such “risky” credit and instead of allowing me to cross rate to the PN rate, I should have been admin seped right then and there. Because of this separation, I am in more debt now than I was before. I would like to state once again I was unaware of a lot of the debt because I was able to purchase cars and rent apts. etc.. In addition a lot of the debt that was listed has been paid off. On the fraudulent enlistment form I filled out before joining the Navy I admitted to appearing in court to face charges and that those charges were dropped. I have not intentionally concealed anything and so I know I did not fraudulent enter the Navy. Even though I have an honorable discharge the separation code of JDA disqualifies me for many Veteran benefits. I was not even entitled to unemployment benefits because the funds would not be released to the state unemployment office. Because I did not complete my enlistment, I was merely bused out of San Diego and I have now incurred many bills in trying to move and situate my household goods. And so I humbly appeal to this committee to thoroughly examine all the documents enclosed and to reconsider my separation code of fraudulent enlistment to erroneous enlistment. I would also like to be considered for a reenlistment code of RE-2. If additional information is needed; I can be reached at the above address. Thank you for your time in this matter.”

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
Enlistment document
Administrative Remarks (NAVPERS 1070/613), dated 24 Apr 2001
Certificate of Appreciation, dated Oct 2002
Letter from Special Olympics of Southern California, dated 10 Dec 2002
Letter from Special Olympics of Southern California, dated 03 Apr 2003
Certificate of completion, PREVENT, undated
Certificate of completion, NSIPS User Course, undated
Letter from DONCAF, dated 11 Mar 2003 (2 pages)
Letter from Applicant, dated 26 Mar 2003
Administrative separation processing notification of rights, dated 16 May 2003 (2 pages)
Recommendation for separation, dated 10 Jun 2003 (3 pages)
Summary of disqualifying information, undated (4 pages)
Leave chit, dated 24 Aug 2001
Leave chit, dated 22 Mar 2002
Leave chit, dated 27 Jun 2002
Leave chit, dated 02 Aug 2002
Leave chit, dated 15 Nov 2002
Leave chit, dated 14 Feb 2003
Leave chit, dated 31 Mar 2003

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     010126 - 010304  COG
         Active: USN                        None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 010305               Date of Discharge: 030810

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 04 22
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 28                          Years Contracted: 4 (24 months extension)

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 45

 Highest Rate: PNSN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.33 (3)    Behavior: 3.33 (3)                OTA: 3.11

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

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

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

010424:  Applicant disqualified from ATF/CTI rating for financial reasons. Applicant requests assignment to PN rating.
030311:  DONCAF Letter, preliminary decision made to deny Applicant a security clearance based on personal conduct; financial considerations, and personal conduct; criminal conduct.
030516:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a least favorable characterization of general (under honorable conditions by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to fraudulent entry as evidenced by adverse financial information.
030516:  Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27(b), elected to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation and submit a written statement for consideration by the separation authority.
030610:  Commanding Officer recommended an honorable discharge by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to fraudulent entry.
Complete Discharge Package Unavailable

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20030810 with an honorable discharge by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to fraudulent entry (A). After a thorough review of the available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (B and C). The presumption of regularity of governmental affairs was applied by the Board in this case in the absence of a complete discharge package (D).

Issue 1: The Applicant contends that she disclosed her prior criminal history upon enlistment and as such she is entitled to a Narrative Reason for Separation Change. Despite her claims, the summary of service clearly documents that defective enlistment, fraudulent entry, was the reason the Applicant was discharged. Specifically, the preliminary decision from DONCAF to deny the clearance indicates that the Applicant failed to disclose a pending charge related to fraud. It further discusses the Applicant’s reluctance to cooperate with the ongoing DONCAF investigation. The Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary. The Applicant’s statements to the contrary are not enough to overcome this presumption. As such, no other Narrative Reason for Separation more clearly describes why the Applicant was discharged. To change the Narrative Reason for Separation would be inappropriate. Relief based on this issue is not warranted.

The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Navy Discharge Review Board. 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. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.

Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Naval Service or any other branch of the Armed Forces. 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. Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.

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. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 Aug 02 until Present, 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 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

C. 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.
D. 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 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 | 2002_Navy | ND02-00385

    Original file (ND02-00385.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant's DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USMC 8806?? 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01071

    Original file (ND03-01071.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :990312: USN Alcohol and Drug Abuse Screening Certificate (NAVCRUIT 1133/7): Applicant failed to disclose pre-service criminal activity, police record.990528: Commanding Officer, Recruit Training Command authorized Applicant’s discharge with an uncharacterized service by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to fraudulent entry. By regulation, members discharged within the first 180 days of enlistment are given a service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00782

    Original file (ND99-00782.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Letter from applicant, dated April 7, 1999. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :980403: Letter of intent to deny eligibility for a security clearance. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00053

    Original file (ND04-00053.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I am requesting that my RE-4 be changed to an RE-1 and that my Interservice Separation Code be changed from a 74 to 99, or another code that will allow me to get back in. Please change my DD 214 to allow me to serve my country with pride.” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 Ten pages from Applicant’s service/medical records Applicant’s statement, dated April 16, 2003 PART...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600096

    Original file (ND0600096.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00096 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050922. I went back to work on the April 18 th 2005 and was told that I was being separated from the Navy and only had 6 weeks. “I believe that the US Navy did a dis-service when discharging me.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01154

    Original file (ND03-01154.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests that the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to “At Navy’s Discretion.” The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing before the Board in the Washington National Capital Region. As the representative, we ask that consideration be given to equitable relief, as this is a matter that involves a determination whether a discharge should be changed under the equity...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00660

    Original file (ND03-00660.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00660 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20030304, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to Convenience of the Government. On page two, item k, Separation Authority Action: it states my discharge should have been ‘characterized as General Under Honorable Conditions, based on fraudulent entry into the naval service.’ My DD-214 does not reflect the recommendation...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600301

    Original file (ND0600301.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Issues, as stated Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application and attached letter: “ I would like to have my re-entry code changed to RE-1 so that I may have the opportunity to re-enlist.” “Dear Sirs: This is to correct my Navy record so that I may once again begin a military career. By regulation, members notified of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00682

    Original file (ND01-00682.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. I would like an upgrade also because I was granted a security clearance on the knowledge of my experimental drug use and during my 2 and 1/2 years of military service all of my drug tests were negative. Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, an employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and proof of his not using drugs, are examples of verifiable...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00473

    Original file (ND04-00473.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    “Dear Chairperson:After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the contention of the appellant in his request for a discharge upgrade of his current Un-Characterized discharge to that of Honorable.The FSM served on active service from July 15, 2003 to August 11, 2003 at which time he was discharged due to Fraudulent Entry...