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

ex-AR, USN 
Docket No. ND04-00990

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20040601.  The Applicant requests the reason for the discharge be changed to “Hardship.”  The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.  Subsequent to the submission of DD Form 293, the Applicant obtained representation from the American Legion.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20050201.  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 and reason for discharge was discovered by the NDRB.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the reason for discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: UNCHARACTERIZED/ ERRONEOUS ENTRY (OTHER), authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-130 (formerly Article 3620280).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “My separation code and re-entry code was improperly assigned.  I am requesting that my separation code is changed from personality disorder to hardship.  I also request the re-entry code to be upgraded from RE-4 to RE-2 for the following reasons:

The discharge was unfair due to the fact that I was going through hardship resulting from the death of a close family member.  I had requested from my recruiter to post-pone my shipping to RTC in Great Lakes, Il, but he informed me that it was not possible since a contract was already in place.  I had no choice but to proceed to the training center in the worst state of mind.  My wife was also enlisting and shipping to training at the same time.  Our recruiter, Chief L_, had stated that my wife and I would be stationed together after training which was also incorrect.  At training center my wife and I found out there we were going to be stationed separately since we had separate contracts.  I have always wanted to serve my country but the circumstances at the time interfere with my focus and morale.  I still want to serve my country proudly.  I tried to commission in the NAVY, but at the interview process I found out that my separation code and re-entry code were not acceptable for entry.  I did not realize until now that my re-entry and separation code meant.  I believe it was unjustly given being that I was denied delay in shipping which would have allowed me the chance to grief and recover from the death of a very close relative.  I did not have any morale support at training and the thought of hindering my marriage made it impossible for me to stay.”

The American Legion submitted no issues for consideration.

Documentation

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

Death Certificate of D_ E. D_ dtd 980528
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (2 copies)
Letter from Applicant’s wife 040523
Letter from R_ A. M_ dtd 020221
Letter from C. S. T_ dtd 040228

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	980127 - 980601	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  980602		Date of Discharge:  980807

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  02  06
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  23			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  45

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

*No marks found

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:

980713:	Mental Health Evaluation/Recommendation:
		Diagnosis:  
			AXIS I:  Learning Disorder, NOS, EPTE
AXIS II:  Mixed personality disorder with passive aggressive features.  EPTE
Recommendation:  Entry level separation is effected because of the disqualifying psychiatric condition.

980806:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by an learning/mixed personality disorder.  Advised least favorable characterization of service would be general (under honorable conditions).

980806:	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.

980807:	Commanding Officer directed an uncharacterized discharge by reason of defective enlistment and induction into the naval service due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by a learning/mixed personality disorder.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19980807 with an uncharacterized service 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.  A member may be separated on the basis of erroneous enlistment when his enlistment would not have occurred if the relevant facts had been known by the Navy or had appropriate directives been followed, it was not the result of fraudulent conduct on the part of the member and the defect is unchanged in any material respect.  Competent medical authority diagnosed the Applicant on 19980713 with a personality disorder that existed prior to service of such severity as to interfere with serving adequately in the Navy.  The separation authority determined that erroneous enlistment (other) most clearly described the reason for discharge.  No other Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describe why the applicant was discharged.  To change the Narrative Reason Separation would be inappropriate.  Relief denied.

Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code.  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.  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.

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.  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 12 Jun 01, Article 1910-130 (formerly 3620280), Separation by Reason of Defective Enlistments and Inductions - Erroneous Enlistment.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety.

D Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity.

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 “http://Boards.law.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:

		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