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

ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND02-00359

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020204, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions.  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 020912.  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:  UNCHARACTERIZED (ENTRY LEVEL SEPARATION)/ERRONEOUS ENTRY (OTHER), authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-130 (formerly Article 3620280).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

l.  To Whom It May Concern,

I'm writing this letter to explain the circumstances behind my receiving a less-than Honorable discharge from the US Navy during Basic Training.  My intention is to have that release reversed to at least a general discharge, which will enable me to enlist once again or at least be considered for a state or federal civil service position.

Prior to entering on active duty on the 24th of May 1999, I told my Navy recruiters in Sterling Heights, MI. where I lived at the time, that I had been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), had been taking Ritalin under my doctor's prescription, and had been under the care of a psychiatrist off-and-on for the previous year.  I was told that my condition was of no consequence as long as I didn't bring it up during basic training and not to worry about it.

Both of my parents met with one of my recruiters for lunch, prior to my induction, and voiced their concerns about my ADD.  They were again told that it was nothing to be concerned about.

In the spring of 1999, it is my understanding that the Navy declared that all persons diagnosed with ADD could enlist with a doctor's note stating there should be no complications from the disorder.  I again told my recruiter that I wanted to declare my condition and obtain a waiver prior to entry on active duty.  I was told that due to the nature of the job I had requested and been selected for, (CTR), the ADD diagnosis would negate obtaining a Top Secret Clearance.

During the Orientation process we were told that if anyone were caught lying to gain entry to the Navy, they would be court-martialed and face possible prison time, not to mention a dishonorable discharge.  I went to my drill instructors and told them I was ADD and had been taking Ritalin.  They too told me to keep quiet and the Navy would never find out.  The thought of the Top Secret clearance process bothered me enough to tell me instructors again that I felt like a liar.  They told me that if I did blow the whistle on myself and didn't get put out of the Navy, they would make the rest of my stay in Boot Camp a "Living Hell".

During training I came down with severe shin splints and was sent to medical to have my legs checked.  While there, I told a corpsman that I was diagnosed with ADD and had lied to get into the Navy.  He sent me upstairs where I told a doctor about the situation.  By now I had a bad taste in my mouth for the Navy because everyone had told me to lie about my situation.  I feared the results of blood and urine testing and by now just wanted to get out of my commitment.  During the separation-process, I was told that I would receive an entry-level discharge with no ill effects unless I wanted to try enlisting again.

Then I would need a doctor's note and have been off Ritalin/medication for at least a year.  In the meantime I've graduated from a very comprehensive computer-training program and am "A-plus" certified in computer basics and repair.  I have submitted numerous applications with my resume to the cities of Olympia and Lacey, and the State of Washington and for positions that I qualify for but have not been considered for so much as an interview.  I can't get a firm answer from anyone but I've been told off-the-cuff that my problem is the notation on my discharge papers that cause me to be flagged as a liar.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.

I had a real desire to join the Navy as my godfather had done before me.  My father is a Viet Nam-era veteran and I wanted to do my time in the defense of my country.  How wrong can those intentions be?

Please help me any way you can to change the annotations on my discharge paperwork.  I'd be happy with a general discharge, anything less than honorable, if need be, but certainly not one that marks me as unfit for future military or government civil service.

Thank you for your consideration, (Signed by the Applicant)

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214 (2 copies)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	990217 - 990523	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  990524		Date of Discharge:  990624

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  01  01
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  21			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  14+		AFQT:  67

Highest Rate:  SR

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

*No Marks Found in service record.

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

UNCHARACTERIZED (ENTRY LEVEL SEPARATION)/ERRONEOUS ENTRY (OTHER), authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-130 (formerly Article 3620280).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

990217:	Report of Enlistment Medical Examination.
Note:  Applicant failed to disclose existing medical conditions/problems – history of ADD, took Ritalin from age 12-18; Applicant later stated he also used anti-depressant medication prior to enlistment.

990615:	Recruit Mental Health:  Mood was mildly anxious with appropriate affect.  Recruit did not exhibit signs of psychosis judgment was good, denied current suicidal and homicidal ideation, any intended gestures or plans.
	AXIS I:  Attention -Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Combined Type, 314.01, EPTE; Depressive Disorder, NOS, 311, EPTE.
	AXIS II:  No Diagnosis on AXIS II, V71.09
	Applicant admitted he took Ritalin from age 12 to 18.  In addition, he also admitted to having taken the following medication(s):  Tofranil; Zoloft; Lithium and Wellbutrin as recently as 2-3 months ago.
Plan & Recommendation:  1.  Entry level separation is effected because of a disqualifying psychiatric condition.  2.  Recruit was encouraged to seek treatment upon separation.  Recruit was educated regarding condition and given an after care referral.  Recruit is suitable to report to Separations Division.

990617:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as General Under Honorable Conditions by reason of convenience of the Government due to physical or mental conditions as evidenced by an attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.  The MILPERSMAN Reference cited was 1910-130, uncharacterized service by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment.

990617:	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

990618:	Commanding Officer, RTC, Great Lakes, directed the applicant's discharge for the convenience of the government due to physical or mental conditions as evidenced by an attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder which interfered with the applicant’s assignment to and performance of duties.  The Commanding Officer authorized separation from the naval service with an Entry Level Separation, with a Reentry code of R-4.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 990624 with an uncharacterized service (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).

Issue 1:  While in basic training, the Applicant was diagnosed with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Depressive Disorder, both of these conditions existed prior to entry into the service.  It was noted that the Applicant failed to disclose these existing medical conditions.  Furthermore, the Applicant failed to disclose his use of anti-depressants prior to his enlistment.  The enlistment would not have occurred if the relevant facts had been known by the Navy Department or had appropriate directives been followed at the time of enlistment.  It is the determination of the Board that the Narrative Reason for Separation; Erroneous Entry (Other) accurately describes the reason for the Applicant’s separation.  Relief denied.

The Applicant requests a general discharge, under honorable conditions, to enable him to enlist once again or at least be considered for a state or federal civil service position.  The Boards charter limits its review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.  The Board has no authority to upgrade/change a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment opportunities.  With regard to the Applicant’s characterization of service, by regulation, service members discharged within the first 180 days of enlistment are given a characterization of service as “Entry Level Separation” unless there were unusual circumstances regarding the performance or conduct, which would merit an honorable characterization.  The Applicant’s service record did not contain any unusual circumstances during his 32 days in the military to warrant a change of discharge to “honorable.”  Although the Applicant may have been given bad advice, the record is devoid of evidence that the Applicant was not responsible for his decisions regarding full disclosure.  An upgrade to honorable conditions would be inappropriate.  Relief not warranted.

Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the naval service or any other branch of the Armed Forces.  Neither an Uncharacterized/Entry Level Separation nor an unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment.  A request for waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.  Relief not warranted.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 12 Dec 97 until 12 Jun 01, Article 1910-130 (formerly 3620280), Separation 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 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