ex-AR, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request


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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:        USNR (DEP)       20040218 - 20041114     Active: 

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Current Enlistment: 20041115    Age at Enlistment:
Period of Enlistment: Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20050525     Highest Rank/Rate: AR
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 11 Day(s)
Education Level:        AFQT: 57
Evaluation Marks:        NFIR

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):    

Periods of UA/CONF:

NJP:     SCM:     SPCM:    CC:      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:           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), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 August 2002 until 19 June 2005, 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 IV, Para 403m(7)(b), Presumption Concerning Court-Martial Specifications.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.       The Applicant seeks an upgrade in order to qualify for G. I. Bill benefits.
2.       The Applicant contends he was told to lie about his medical condition during enlistment if he wanted to protect and serve the country and people he cares about.
3.       (Board Issue) The record shows the Applicant had no misconduct or other significant negative aspects that would have warranted a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization.

Decision

Date: 20150108            Location: Washington D.C.        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 evidence submitted by the Applicant. The Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances that led to discharge and the discharge process to ensure discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service included no NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warnings and no misconduct resulting in nonjudicial punishment or court-martial. Based on the Applicant’s diagnosis of Wolf-Parkinson-White syndrome by competent medical authority on 18 January 2005, command administratively processed for separation on 16 May 2005. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks an upgrade in order to qualify for G. I. Bill benefits. The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing educational opportunities. Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge. 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.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends he was told to lie about his medical condition during enlistment if he wanted to protect and serve the country and people he cares about. 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 recruiter misled him through the recruitment process. The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case. However, even if the Applicant could show misrepresentations in the recruitment process, such misrepresentations would neither amount to a justification nor to a defense for the Applicant’s own misrepresentation, if discovered.

According to regulations, an enlistment, induction, or period of service is fraudulent when there has been deliberate material misrepresentation, including the omission or concealment of facts that, if known at the time, would have reasonably been expected to preclude, postpone, or otherwise affect the service member’s eligibility for enlistment or induction. Federal law requires all persons applying for enlistment in the military to disclose all information that may impact the applicant’s ability to serve. Therefore, the Applicant had an obligation to truthfully and fully answer all questions regarding his medical history. Based on the Applicant’s failure to truthfully and fully disclose information regarding his pre-service medical history and his post-service admission for doing so in his application to the NDRB, this board determined that his enlistment was actually fraudulent and not erroneous. Although competent medical authority recommended separation based on his Wolf-Parkinson-White syndrome, his command chose to discharge him based on what was then believed to be an erroneous enlistment.

A member may be separated on the basis of erroneous enlistment, reenlistment, induction, or extension of enlistment when the enlistment would not have occurred if relevant facts had been known by the Department of the Navy or had appropriate directives been followed. At the time of his discharge his narrative reason for separation was based on the premise of an error committed by the Navy, and no fraudulent intent on the part of the Applicant. The Board determined the assigned Narrative Reason for Separation of service was proper and appropriate at the time of separation but is no longer an accurate reflection of the circumstances of his discharge given the admission in the Applicant’s application. However, this board does not have the authority to change the Applicant’s narrative reason for separation to one for which he was not notified of. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) (Board Issue) () . The record shows the Applicant had no misconduct or other significant negative aspects that would have warranted a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the NDRB discerned no impropriety in the discharge action but did discern an inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service based upon what the record shows was known at the time of the Applicant’s discharge. By majority rule, the NDRB voted to upgrade the Applicant’s discharge; by unanimous vote, the narrative reason for the discharge, , shall remain as issued. Relief granted.

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 change to 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), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 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