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

 ex-SA, USN 
Docket No. ND03-00660

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 20030304, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to Convenience of the Government.  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 20040212.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge and narrative reason shall not change.  The discharge shall remain:  GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/FRAUDULENT ENTRY INTO MILITARY SERVICE, DRUG ABUSE, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-134 (formerly 3630100).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “I believe my discharge, reenty code and separation code are incorrect.  I am requesting an upgrade of my discharge.  Please see attached letter detailing these issues.

Dear BCNR:

The following issues are the reasons I believe my discharge should be upgraded to Honorable. If you disagree, please explain in detail why you disagree. The presumption of regularity that might normally permit you to assume that the service acted correctly in characterizing my service as less than honorable does not apply to my case because of the evidence I am submitting.

My ability to serve was impaired by my youth and immaturity. This circumstance lead to my review prior to my discharge on 26 May 2000. At the time of my review, it was determined that I was alcohol dependent and that I had used drugs prior to my entry to the military service. I was not then nor am I now alcohol dependent. Prior to entering the military, I did try drugs while in high school, however, I did not like them and have not used drugs since high school. Due to my immaturity and embarrassment of trying drugs in high school, I did not disclose this information when I entered the Navy because I was afraid that I would not be able to enter the military. I am an upstanding and law abiding citizen. I felt that the medical staff questioning me during the review coerced me in believing that I was not worthy of military duty.

Enclosed is a letter from Commanding Officer R_ F_, Service School Command, Great Lakes. On page two, item k, Separation Authority Action: it states my discharge should have been ‘characterized as General Under Honorable Conditions, based on fraudulent entry into the naval service.’ My DD-214 does not reflect the recommendation made by Commander F_.

Also upon my release from the Navy, mistakes were made on other paperwork. My DD-214, states I was released on 26 May 2000, however, the following year I received a bill from Defense Finance and Accounting, which stated I was released on 06 May 2000. It took several months to correct this error with DFAS-DE.

I am requesting review of my case, because I believe that a mistake was made on my DD-214, reason for separation. I am requesting that my discharge be upgraded to General Under Honorable at the Convenience of the Government and that my reenlistment code be changed to RE-1 and the Separation Code be corrected. I appreciate your consideration of my request.  Thank you.

Sincerely,

D_ G_ H_ (Applicant)
(telephone number deleted)”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214
Two pages from Applicant’s service record
Account statement, dated June 4, 2001 (3 pages)
Letter to Applicant from Defense Finance and  Accounting, Denver Center, dated March 15, 2001
Letter to Applicant from Defense Finance and Accounting, Denver Center, dated March 30, 2001
Account statement, dated January 29, 2001 (2 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	990817 - 990926	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  990927		Date of Discharge:  000526

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  08  00
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  71

Highest Rate:  SA

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 Available  for review

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/FRAUDULENT ENTRY INTO MILITARY SERVICE, DRUG ABUSE, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-134 (formerly 3630100).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

000328:	ARD: Applicant appears to meet 3 of 7 criteria for alcohol dependence.  Recommend intensive outpatient.

000502:	Psychological evaluation: Diagnosis: Axis I: Alcohol dependence, early partial remission.  Axis II: Personality disorder NOS, antisocial and borderline features.

000516:	Applicant declined in-patient Level III treatment.

000516:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure, and convenience of the government due to personality disorder, and defective enlistment and induction due to fraudulent entry into the naval service.

000516:	Applicant advised of 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.

000523:	Commanding Officer directed discharge with a characterization of general (under honorable conditions) by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to fraudulent entry into the military service, drug abuse.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20000526 with a characterization of general (under honorable conditions) by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to fraudulent entry into the military service, drug abuse (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:  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.  While he may feel that his youth and immaturity were contributing factors, they do not mitigate the Applicant’s disobedience of the orders and directives that regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, demonstrating he was unsuitable for further service.  His service record is marred by his fraudulent enlistment.  Additionally, 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.  However, neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment.  A request for waiver is normally done during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.  Furthermore, the NDRB, will change the reason for discharge and separation code if such a change is warranted.  The summary of service clearly documents that fraudulent entry was the reason the Applicant was discharged.  No other narrative reason or separation code could more clearly describe why he was discharged.  Relief is therefore denied.

The NDRB noted an administrative error on the original DD Form 214.  Block 24 did not reflect the characterization of service directed by the Applicant’s Commanding Officer.  The Board notified Commander, Naval Personnel Command, Millington, TN and recommended the DD Form 214 be corrected or reissued.   

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, a positive employment record, a substance-free lifestyle, and certification of community service and non-involvement with civil authorities are examples of verifiable proof that can be submitted.   

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.  The Applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 12 Dec 97 until 2 Feb 01, Article 1910-134 (previously 3630100), Separation by Reason of Defective Enlistments and Inductions – Fraudulent Entry Into the 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 "afls14.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