Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901452
Original file (ND0901452.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-YNSN, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20090501
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge: ERRONEOUS ENTRY (OTHER)
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive:         US N R (DEP)        19990205 - 19990922     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Current Enlistment: 19990923     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20001006      Highest Rank/Rate: YNSN
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 14 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 67
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: NFIR         Behavior: NFIR   OTA: NFIR

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      NONE

Periods of UA /C ONF :     NJP :     ` S CM :   SPCM:

C C :      Retention Warning Counseling:


Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

 Related to Military Service:     
DD 214:                   Service/ 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 /To Representat ion :            From /To Congress m ember :         

Oth er Documentation :   

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 12 December 1997 until
12 June 2001, Article 1910-130, Separation by Reason of Defective Enlistments and Inductions - Erroneous Enlistment.
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 .



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.       Wants to receive Montgomery GI Bill benefits.
2.       D ischarged due to chronic headaches after being diagnosed with bipolar disorder .
Decision

Date: 20 100 506             Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall ERRONEOUS ENTRY (OTHER).
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 g overnment al affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. The Applicant’s medical record of 23 November 1999 indicates he was evaluated by a neurologist to determine his fitness for flight duty . The Applicant reported occasional headaches for 2- 4 months with a duration of up to two hours. The neurologist recommended the Applicant for a waiver after ma king the following assess ment: 1) he has experienc ed non-debilitating, tension type headaches that did n ot interfer e with his dut ies and 2) he has completed boot camp, been responsive to simple analgesics , and had only 2 minor sick call visits for complaints regarding his knee and neck. Per an evaluation of 03 January 2000 t he Applicant was seen again by a neurolo gist at Naval Operational Medicine Institute due to his inability to complete an obstacle course because of headaches. The neurolog ical evaluation also contained the following information : 1) this was the Applicant’s second evaluation for headaches, 2) the headaches which began about 2 years ago (1998) last ed for hours and interfere d with normal activities, including work, 3) he ha d about 2 headaches a week that were relieved somewhat by Motrin and Tylenol, 4) he ha d a history of head trauma as a child and at age 16 experienced a brief loss of consciousness, 5) the initial impression was chronic headaches, some severe with rare migraines, and 6) it was recommended that the Applicant be found Not Physically Qualified (NPQ) for aircrew. The Commanding officer’s (Naval Aviation Schools Command) letter of 04 February 2000 indicates the Applicant was found NPQ from the Aircrewman Candidate School and disenrolled from the program.

Additionally, the Applicant’s medical record of 03 May 2000 reflects the Applicant had an urgent walk-in psychological evaluation for suicidal risk after 8 months of active duty service. During this visit the Applicant reported the following: 1) h e had experienced intermittent depression since junior high school, 2) felt he could not afford to be happy or something bad would happen to him, 3) the episodes of depression worsened i n December 1999 for no apparent reason, and 5) at the time he wa s experiencing decreased sleep, appetite, energy, motivation , concentration, interest and serious suicidal ideations for two weeks . On 23 May 2000, the Applicant was placed on medical hold. O n 29 August 2000 a mental health provider at Naval Technical Training Center evaluated the Applicant and indicated : 1) the appropriate diagnosis was Bipolar II, 2) the Applicant was to receive increased doses of Lithium and 3) his medical board would take 6-8 weeks. Pursuant to a letter dated 19 September 2000 the Applicant requested a waive r of his medical board for Bipolar disorder, indicating that it was not gravely disabling and that he would rather be administratively discharged to save time and get back to school . A staff psychologist at the, Branch Medical Clinic, Meridian drafted a memorandum of 19 September 2000 indicating that th e Applicant was stable, fully competent for self-care , completely able to function at work and in a social environment , and his outcome would not be improved by remaining in the Navy until his board was completed, and he was unlikely to receive significant disability benefits, as the mood disorder was pre-existing.

Per the Applicant’s DD Form 214 he was administratively separated based on erroneous entry (other) and given a separation code of JFC indicating he was not entitled to an administrative separation board based on his years of service and recommended characterization of service . The NDRB did not have the Applicant’s administrative separation package to determine whether or not the Applicant waived right s to consult with qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request a review by the ge n eral courts-martial convening authority .
 : (Nondecisional) The Applicant is seeking an upgrade so that he can receive Montgomery GI Bill benefits . The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant is seeking an upgrade to Honorable and contend s that “a change is in order due to the fact that I was only discharged for chronic headaches after I was diagnosed with Bi-polar disorder. ” In reviewing this case the presumption of regularity of government affairs was applied in the absence of a complete service record, administrative separation package and incomplete medical records. Pursuant to MILPERSMAN 1910-130 (formerly 3620280) , a member may be separated on the basis of erroneous enlistment when the enlistment would not have occurred if relevant facts had been known by Navy Department or had appropriate directives been followed, the enlistment was not the result of fraudulent conduct on the part of member, and the defect is unchanged in any material respect. Based on the foregoing evidence as previously discussed , it has been determined that the requirements for separation due to erroneous enlistment have been met since relevant facts regarding the Applicant’s pre - service medical history of bipolar disorder w as not disclosed by the Applicant prior to his enlistment and was not known by the Navy Department . Th e record reflects that while being evaluated for headaches it was determined that the Applicant had a bipolar condition for which he was subsequently processed for a medical board . However, while in the process of being medically evaluated the Applicant requested to be a dministratively separated for the bipol a r condition that was not known at the time he entered active duty. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety in the discharge action but did discern an inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service. For discharges based on erroneous enlistment , the discharge should be H onorable unless th ere exist s justification for a G eneral ( Under H onorab le C onditions), Under Other Than Honorable C onditions, or Entry Level S eparation characterization. The Board found no counseling’s, nonjudicial punishments or evaluations to warrant a General (Under Honorable C onditions) characterization. Therefore, the Board voted unanimously to change t he character of the discharge to Honorable .

Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s s ummary of s ervice, r ecord e ntries, and d ischarge p rocess, the Board found Therefore , based on the absence of misconduct or adverse performance evaluation and the Applicant’s medical condition the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain ERRONEOUS ENTRY (OTHER) .


ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant

 Complaint Procedures : If you believe 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 : 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. 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. There are veterans organizations such as the American Legion and the Association of Service Disable Veterans that are willing to provide guidance to former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted 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 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB. 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.
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 BCNR can make changes to reenlistment codes. Additionally, the NDRB 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 is processed subsequently for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings. If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct or for any basis wherein an Other Than Honorable discharge is authorized, 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 other medical related reasons. Only the BCNR can grant this type of narrative reason change.

 Automatic Upgrades - There is no law or regulation that provides for an unfavorable discharge to be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct subsequent to leaving naval service.

Post-Service Conduct : The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. Outstanding post-service conduct, 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, is considered during Board reviews. Documentation to support a post-service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s birth certificates (if applicable); character witness statements; documentation of community or church service; certification of non-involvement with civil authorities; evidence of financial stability or letters of good standing from banks, credit card companies, or other financial institutions; attendance at or completion of higher education (official transcripts); and documentation of a drug-free lifestyle. 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 accomplishments help demonstrate in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

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 special 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. The NDRB does not have the jurisdictional authority to review a discharge or dismissal resulting from a general court-martial.

Board Membership: The names and votes of the members of the NDRB 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

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-01892

    Original file (BC-2008-01892.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-01892 INDEX CODE: 110:00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect he received a medical discharge. AFBCMR Medical Consultant's complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01774

    Original file (PD-2014-01774.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the VASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. All Board members agreed that the NARSUM examination 6 weeks prior to TDRL entry did not support any §4.71a criteria greater than 10% impairment level; and, therefore, recommends no change from the PEB’s 10% impairment rating entering into TDRL.The Board next considered...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800569

    Original file (ND0800569.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)19990602–19990603Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19990603Period of enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:19990901Length of Service: 00 Yrs 02Mths29 DysEducation Level: Age at Enlistment:AFQT: 31Highest Rank/Rate:E-3Evaluation marks:Performance: NONE Behavior:NONEOTA: Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):Rifle Pistol Periods of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900496

    Original file (ND0900496.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)20020124 - 20020218Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20020219Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20040227Highest Rank/Rate: MM3Length of Service: Year(s)Month(s)09 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 66EvaluationMarks:Performance:3.0(2)Behavior:2.0(2)OTA: 2.71Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):ESWP...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101649

    Original file (ND1101649.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, based on the significant post-service medical evidence submitted on the Applicant’s behalf, the NDRB determined the awarded characterization of service shall GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) and the narrative reason for separation shall remain IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400435

    Original file (ND1400435.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to:SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY or CONDITION, NOT A DISABILITY Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)20120314 - 20120923Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20120924Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20121108Highest Rank/Rate:SNLength of Service:Year(s)Month(s) 16 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 94EvaluationMarks:Performance:N/ABehavior:N/AOTA:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800870

    Original file (ND0800870.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated to Military Service: DD 214: Service/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 Representation:From Congress member: Other Documentation: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801104

    Original file (ND0801104.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the foregoing, the NDRB determined a change to the 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201611

    Original file (ND1201611.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests a change in his narrative reason for separation to Erroneous Entry and separation code change to JFC, because he contends he was physically, emotionally, and psychologically unprepared for service in 2008. ” 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...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01338

    Original file (PD-2013-01338.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On admission the CI reported worsening depression and anxiety symptoms, auditory hallucinations of people calling her name and anger episodes involving hurting herself, though she denied SI or homicidal ideation (HI). BOARD FINDINGS : IAW DoDI 6040.44, provisions of DoD or Military Department regulations or guidelines relied upon by the PEB will not be considered by the Board to the extent they were inconsistent with the VASRD in effect at the time of the adjudication.The Board did not...