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

ex-AR, USNR
Docket No. ND01-00458

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010227, 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 list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 010817.  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/Fraudulent entry, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630100.

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:

Copy of DD Form 214
Statement from applicant

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:  890807		Date of Discharge:  891006

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  01  14
	Inactive:  00  00  15

Age at Entry:  23			Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  32

Highest Rate:  AR

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMA*	Behavior:  NMA*		OTA:  NMA*

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

*No marks assigned.
Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

ENTRY LEVEL SEPARATION/Fraudulent entry, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630100.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

890823:	Applicant ordered to active duty for 36 months under the Active Mariner Program.

890906:	NAVDRUGLAB, Jacksonville, FL reports applicant's urine sample received 890828, tested positive for cocaine.

890912:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with an Entry level separation by reason of Defective enlistment and Induction due to fraudulent entry as evidenced by failure to disclose pre-service drug use.

990915:	Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted 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.

990922:	Commanding officer recommended discharge with an Entry level separation by reason of Defective enlistment and induction due to fraudulent entry.  Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim):  AR (applicant) was screened and laboratory confirmed positive for cocaine on his accession urinalysis. He did not include the full extent of his preservice drug use on his enlistment documents.  His enlistment and induction are fraudulent, and an Entry Level Separation is recommended.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 891006 with an Entry level separation by reason of Defective enlistment and Induction due to fraudulent entry (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.  Relief denied.

The following is provided for the benefit of the applicant.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or injustice occurred during the applicant’s enlistment.  Additionally, 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 the service.  However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review.  Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than Honorable discharge.  Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, an employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and proof of his not using drugs, are examples of verifiable documents that should have been provided to receive consideration for clemency, based on post-service conduct.  The applicant did not provide any of these documents.  He is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge.  The applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.  Legal representation at a personal appearance hearing is highly recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 7/86, effective 
16 Dec 86 until 19 Dec 93, Article 3630100, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF DEFECTIVE ENLISTMENTS AND INDUCTIONS DUE TO FRAUDULENT ENTRY INTO NAVAL SERVICE.

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 view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at "afls10.jag.af.mil". 

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
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023