Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800002
Original file (ND0800002.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-RMSR, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20070927
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge: FRAUDULENT ENTRY IN TO MILITARY SERVICE
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN 3630100

Applicant’s Request:     Characterization change to:
                           Narrative Reason change:

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive: US N R (DEP) 19961115 - 19970909                
Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 19970910      Period of enlistment : Years Months    Date of Discharge: 19980521
Length of Service : Yrs Mths 12 D ys      Education Level:         Age at Enlistment: 18     AFQT: unreadable
Highest Rank /Rate : RMSR   Evaluation marks: Performance: NA         Behavior: NA              OTA: NA
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):


Types of Documents Submitted

 Related to Military Service:      DD 214:          Service and/or 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 Representat ion :              From Member of Congress:
Other Documentation (Describe)



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. MEPS told to fill out medical questionnaire with only info from last five years, boot camp and A school required life history.
2. Post – Upstanding citizen, Bachelors degree in civil engineering, employed with engineering firm, passed test to become a professional engineer, May ’08 will become a professional engineer, integrity, honesty, high moral standards, letter of reference from former/future employer and engineering professor at New Mexico State University.

Decision

Date: 20 08 0131             Location: Washington D.C         R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall FRAUDULENT ENTRY INTO MILITARY SERVICE .
Discussion

 Issue 1 ( ): The Applicant contends that he was instructed to report his medical history on his MEPS screening for the last five years. The Applicant’s last documented seizure was in December 1991, he filled out his MEPS screening on November 15 1996 which is within five years. Furthermore, during that time the Applicant’s medical record documents three follow-up visits to his civilian doctor and prescription medication . The Board found that the documentation and statements provided for review do not refute the presumption that the Applicant deliberately misrepresented his medical condition 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 Sailor’ s eligibility for enlistment or induction. In addition, the documentation available for review did not refute the presumption that his seizure condition still existed during the time of his enlistment. The evidence of record did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for h is conduct or that he should not be held accountable for h is actions.

Issue 2 ( ): The NDRB congratulate s the Applicant on his apparent life successes and appreciates his efforts at becoming a productive member of society. However, 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 the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Normally, to permit relief a procedural impropriety or inequity must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question. Outstanding post-service conduct to the extent that 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. The Applicant provided a copy of his diploma from NMSU, a letter from his former and future employer, and a l etter from a professor at NMSU in addition to his statement to the board claiming integrity, honesty, high moral standards, and to be a good citizen as documentation of his post-service accomplishments. The Applicant's efforts need to be more encompassing than those provided. For example, the Applicant could have produc ed documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities. The Board determined that the documentation provided by the Applicant did not mitigate the misconduct which resulted in the Applicant’s discharge and characterization of his service.

In reviewing discharges, the Board presume s regularity in the conduct of g overnment al affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence ( to include evidence submitted by the Applicant ) to rebut the presumption . After a thorough review of the available evidence to include the Applicant’s s ummary of s ervice, m edical and s ervice r ecord e ntries, d ischarge p rocess and evid ence submitted by the Applicant the Board found that


Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 12 Dec 97 until 2 Feb 01, 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 5420.174D 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 .

ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant

 Complaint Procedures : 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 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 : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provi ded the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the 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. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years , has already been grante d a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted his 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 Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the Naval 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.
Employmen t / Educational Opportunities : 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 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 Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes. Additionally, the Board 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 subsequently is processed for an administrative involuntary separation for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended. The Physical Evaluation Board case remains in suspense pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings. If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct, 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 “PTSD . ” Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records can grant this type of narrative reason change.

Automatic Upgrades - 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 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. Examples of documentation that may be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.

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 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.

Board Membership: 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:

 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

Similar Decisions

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500254

    Original file (MD1500254.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s record of service included an entry level administrative discharge from the Marine Corps for reason of a Fraudulent Entry into Military Service. Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain UNCHARACTERIZED and the narrative reason for separation shall remain FRAUDULENT ENTRY INTO MILITARY SERVICE....

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200026

    Original file (MD1200026.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the fraudulent enlistment, command administratively processed for separation. ” 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. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00383

    Original file (ND04-00383.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Entry Level Separation’ based on the following facts: 1) the applicant was issued a waiver 6 days after the applicant initial enlistment date, and 4 days before he read and signed the Navy’s Drug and Alcohol Abuse Statement , and 2) the applicant had no other adverse actions on record warranting a discharge, and therefore the applicant should have been allowed to remain in the Navy, but since he was not he requests an Entry Level Separation ! On 20 Aug 1992, Applicant was issued a NAVPERS...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700280

    Original file (ND0700280.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)20010319 - 20011109ELS (Declined Enlistment)Active: Inactive: USNR (DEP) 20041207 - 20041214 COG Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20041215Years Contracted:; Extension: Date of Discharge:20041229 Length of...

  • 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 | 2006_Navy | ND0600668

    Original file (ND0600668.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Decisional Issues Equity: Post-service equity Documentation In addition to the service and medical records, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 4)Employment verification from G_ M_, General Manager, undated PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600387

    Original file (ND0600387.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was evaluated by LT Wright PA-C and myself today and was advised that since his condition existed prior to enlistment and he did not disclose the preexisting condition of migraine headaches prior to enlistment, that his enlistment was actually fraudulent or erroneous. A: Migraine headaches by history1. Follow up with SMO concerning disposition in Navy.020713: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as entry level...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501140

    Original file (ND0501140.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events : 030930: Report of Medical History: Applicant failed to disclose pre-service treatment for depression and anxiety disorder.040427: Medical evaluation by Recruit Evaluation Unit: Applicant was initially referred to Recruit Evaluation Unit after he was taken to the hospital and treated for an...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700392

    Original file (ND0700392.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change: Applicant’s Issues:1. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, medical and service record entries, discharge process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214 The NDRB did note administrative errors on the original DD Form 214:,, should read: “ AR”,, should read: “ E1” “ FRAUDULENT ENTRY INTO...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801270

    Original file (ND0801270.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 conduct mitigates the reason for the characterization of discharge.The Applicant submitted evidence of education, employment, and several reference letters to support her contention of good post-service conduct. The Board determined an upgrade would be inappropriate.After a...