Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000804
Original file (ND1000804.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-SR, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20100127
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)        20070717 - 20071118     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Current Enlistment: 20071119     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20071219      Highest Rank/Rate: SR
Length of Service : Y ear s M onth 01 D a y
Education Level:        AFQT: 47
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:

- 20071205 :      Not eligible for reenlistment due to: ASMO Code 307.
Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

          Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, should read: “NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL”
          “FRAUDULENT ENTRY”

The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.
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:           Rehabilitation/Treatment:                 Criminal Records:       
         Personal Documentation:           Community Service:                References:     
         Department of VA letter:                  Other Documentation:    
                  Additional Statements:
         From Applicant:           From/To Representation:           From/To Congress member:        

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 11, effective 3 May 2005 until 16 May 2008, 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 .



















































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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.       The Applicant wants his discharge overturned so he can pursue a career in law enforcement.
 2.       The Applicant contends he never had a syncope episode and had never been diagnosed with syncope prior to entering the service.
Decision

Date: 20 1 1 03 10             Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation :

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 g overnment al affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. The Applicant’s record of service included no NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warnings, non-judicial punishments, or courts-martial . However, the Applicant ’s command determined he fail ed to disclose a history of syncop e episodes prior to ent ering the Nav y , necessitating a fraudulent enlistment. Based on th is offense committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. The NDRB did not have the Applicant’s administrative separation package to determine whether he waived rights to c onsult with a qualified counsel and submit a written statement . The Applicant was not entitled to an administrative board .

: (Non - decisional) The Applicant wants his discharge overturned so he can pursue a career in law enforcement . The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment opportunities. Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.
: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he never had a syncope episode and had never been diagnosed with syncope prior to entering the service . He a rgues that , had he had syncope, the condition would have been caught early in life . He also argues that the condition would have been caught when he conducted the initial fitness assessment. Syncope is temporary loss of consciousness and posture defined as “fainting” or “passing out . ” In the R eport of Medical History , dated 17 July 2007, found in the Applicant’s service record , the Applicant responded “no” to the question s regarding a history of “dizziness or fainting spells ” and “pain or pressure in the chest . ” However, d ocumentation provided by the Applicant indicates he related to medical personnel, after entering the service, that he had multiple episodes of “passing out” prior to entering the service and that some episodes were with chest pains. Regardless of whether the Applicant was declared fit for active duty , never diagnosed with syncope, or that his condition was not caught prior to entering the service, he had a responsibility to report his history of fainting spells and chest pains . This information would have given the Navy an opportunity to decide whether further examination was needed to determine whether to allow the Applicant to enter the Navy. The Board concluded the Applicant was aware of his fainting spells and chest pains prior to entering the Navy but failed to disclose them ; therefore , a fraudulent enlistment occurred. The board could discern no impropriety in the discharge process. Relief denied.

 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, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain .

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of discharge. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum for additional information.


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 Disabled American 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 their 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.
Employment/Educational Opportunities : 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.

 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

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001350

    Original file (MD1001350.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to:MEDICAL OR CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT Summary of ServicePeriod of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20060522Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years MonthsDate of Discharge:20060622Highest Rank: Length of Service: Active: Year(s) Month(s)1 Day(s)Education Level: AFQT:81MOS: 9900Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):/Fitness Reports: Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):NONEPeriods of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02207

    Original file (BC 2013 02207.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The specific reason for the discharge recommendation was a pre-existing medical condition; the applicant had a history of chest pain and recurrent syncope which if revealed could have resulted in rejection of her enlistment. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: She is not challenging her dismissal, only the DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101773

    Original file (ND1101773.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to:RE-1 Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)20080618 - 20090727Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20090728Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20091217Highest Rank/Rate:SALength of Service:Years Months20 DaysEducation Level:AFQT: 74EvaluationMarks:Performance:NONEBehavior:NONEOTA: NONEAwards and Decorations (per DD 214):Pistol MM...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09605-06

    Original file (09605-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.On 17 August 2000 you enlisted in the Navy at age 18. On 19 September 2000 you received a medical...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 04802-03

    Original file (04802-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected to show that he was assigned a more favorable reentry code than RE-4, and that he was discharged for a reason other than a condition, not a disability. The Board, consisting of Messrs. eviewed Petitioner s ’ allegations of error and injustice on 2 ant to its regulations, determined that the corrective...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02337

    Original file (PD-2013-02337.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEWNAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXCASE: PD-2013-02337BRANCH OF SERVICE: Army BOARD DATE: 20140912 The syncope condition characterized as “recurrent syncopal episodes likely secondary to hyperventilation syndrome” was forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501.No other conditions were submitted by the MEB.The Informal PEBadjudicated syncope as unfitting rated at 20%citing criteria of theVeterans Affairs Schedule for Rating...

  • 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:...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01395

    Original file (PD-2014-01395.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The MVP with the three regurgitations and the neurocardiogenic syncope are two separate diagnoses.The neurocardiogenic syncope is treated with the pacemaker, not the MVP.” The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of theVASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. The CI had an exercise stress test 14 months prior to separation that documented a workload of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00155

    Original file (ND00-00155.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. 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 that the applicant only admitted to foot problems (les planus) on his Report of Medical Examination upon entry into the service. In the applicant’s issue 2, the applicant states “my discharge did not match,...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-02121

    Original file (PD-2014-02121.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A neurology evaluation performed on 1March 2005 as part of his pain evaluation. The chest wall pain was diagnosed as costo-chondritis and the left upper arm pain was secondary to both a blood clot and a neuropathy of the ulnar nerve. 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...