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

 ex-AR, USNR
Docket No. ND99-00494

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 990224, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 991213.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: ENTRY LEVEL SEPARATION/Erroneous enlistment - enlisted, reenlisted, extended, or inducted in error, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620280.

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214.  Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, should read:  “Erroneous enlistment - enlisted in error” vice “UNABLE TO MEET MINIMUM SWIMMING REQUIREMENTS”.  The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate. 

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

Prior to the documentary discharge review, the applicant introduced no issues as block 8 on the DD Form 293 is blank. 

Documentation

In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:

Office of Naval Judge Advocate General letter of 22 Jan 1997
Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):

	Active:    None
	Inactive:  None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  880229		Date of Discharge:  881017

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  02  23
	Inactive:  00  04  27

Age at Entry:  21			Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  30

Highest Rate:  AR

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMF		Behavior:  NMF		OTA:  NMF

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None 

Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

ENTRY LEVEL SEPARATION/UNABLE TO MEET MINIMUM SWIMMING REQUIREMENTS, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620280.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

880725:	Commenced active duty for 36 months under the Active Mariner Program.

880729:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (non-swim qualified), notified of corrective actions (25 hours concentrated swimming instruction) and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 	

880807:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (swim failure), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

880909:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (swim failure), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

880919:	Recruit Evaluation Report:  Member failed test 1 twice in C216, came to C234 and scored 32.  Member failed to qualify swim after 40 hours of remedial swim classes.  Will never qualify and is a waste of time trying to qualify.  Recommend discharge from Navy.

880920:	Applicant acknowledged that he had failed to improve the efficiencies in his performance and/or conduct as evidenced by failure to swim qual and was advised that he was now eligible for administrative separation action.

881004:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with an entry level separation by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by unable to meet the minimum swim requirements.

881004:	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.  Applicant did not object to the separation.

881011:	CO, RTC, Great Lakes, IL directed the applicant's discharge with an entry level separation by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by unable to meet minimum swim requirements.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 881017 with an entry level separation   for defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment (A).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B).  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).

The applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A), effective 15 Jun 87 until 13 Dec 89, Article 3620280, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL- BY REASON OF DEFECTIVE ENLISTMENTS AND  INDUCTIONS - ERRONEOUS ENLISTMENT.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.  

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.

PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT

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 Directive 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Directive.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive 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 obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to:

		DA Military Review Boards Agency
		Management Information and Support Directorate
		Armed Forces Reading Room
		Washington, D.C.  20310-1809

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:

		Naval Council of Personnel Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		Washington Navy Yard
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington, D.C.  20374-5023