Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800236
Original file (ND0800236.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-FA, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20071204
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive: US N R (DEP)      20060622 - 20060823              Active:
Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 20060824      Period of enlistment : Years Extension          Date of Discharge: 20061207
Length of Service : Yrs Mths 14 D ys      Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 84
Highest Rank /Rate : FA     Evaluation marks: Performance: N/A        Behavior: N/A     OTA: N/A
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJPs :    
         20061005 : Art(s) 92 . Awarded - Susp -


Retention Warnings: .
         20061005 : For NJP dated 20061005 .

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) Letter from Board for Correction of Naval Records
                                    DD Form 149



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Employment Opportunities
2. Entrance questionnaire questions were glossed over.
3 . Could not be expected to remember incidents at ten years of age

Decision

Date: 20 08 0328                  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 (OTHER) .
Discussion

 : either which the Board cannot form the basis of relief for the Applicant, or the Board does not have the authority to grant the relief for which the Applicant petitioned. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum regarding .

Issue s 2 - 3 : ( ). The Applicant implies that t he entrance questionnaire questions were glossed over, that he could not be expected to remember incidents that occurred at age ten, and that the recruiter was focused on only quotas. The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs. The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that the applicant’s enlistment process was not properly executed. The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.

The Applicant’s service record documents that after the Applicant received nonjudicial punishment, and finding out that his sister was having problems and that his family was going to have to sell their house, that he was hospitalized for suicidal precautionary reasons . During his evaluation at the Recruit Evaluation Unit, the Applicant divulged that he had a long history of depression and a tendency to become suicidal when things do not go his way or when he is placed in stressful situations. Additionally, the Applicant reported, that he was required to attend outpatient therapy for a number of years as well as being placed on antidepressants beginning at approximately ten years of age. Lastly, on the Applicant’s initial medical screening dated 2006031, the Applicant denied any counseling. The Board found that the Applicant deliberately concealed a disqualifying factor during the recruiting process and therefore the narrative reason given was appropriate.

 In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. 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

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 11, effective 3 May 2005 until Present, Article 1910-134, 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 .

C. The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 92.



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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901411

    Original file (ND0901411.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ” 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 has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800330

    Original file (ND0800330.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of discharge. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or “PTSD.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700913

    Original file (ND0700913.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Discharge Process Date Notified: 20061011Reason for Discharge:--Least Favorable Characterization: Date Applicant Responded to Notification:20061011Rights Elected at Notification: Consult with Counsel Obtain Copies of Documents Submit Statement(s) (date) (NOT FOUND IN RECORD)GCMCA review Separation Authority (date): COMMANDING OFFICER, RECRUIT TRAINING COMMAND, GREAT LAKES, IL (20061025)Reason for discharge directed: - Characterization directed: Date Applicant Discharged: 20061031 Types of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301095

    Original file (ND1301095.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks to improve his employment opportunities.2. ” 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 has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300857

    Original file (ND1300857.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .Discussion The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700689

    Original file (ND0700689.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 Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214 The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214: “ UNCHARACTERIZED ” The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate. Discharge Process Date...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900827

    Original file (ND0900827.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)20030730 - 20030818Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20030819Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20061108Highest Rank/Rate:ABH3Length of Service: Year(s)Month(s)20 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 61EvaluationMarks:Performance:1.3(3)Behavior:1.0(3)OTA: 1.38Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):Periods of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801865

    Original file (ND0801865.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    For the edification of the Applicant, with respect to non-service-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.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101774

    Original file (ND1101774.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. ” 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. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining veterans benefits and this issue does not serve...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801360

    Original file (ND0801360.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the awarded characterization was appropriate.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found 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...