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

  ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND05-00171

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20041108.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests a documentary record review.  The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20050118.  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 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 stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “I believe that I was erroneously separated without being given sufficient time toprove that I was physically and mentally fit to serve in the Navy.

Respectfully request consideration for correction to Naval records pertaining to the separation code and reenlistment code on my DD-214 dated 10Jan03.  As you may be aware, recruits go through a Moment of Truth during their first week of boot camp.  In this classroom atmosphere we were asked if we had anything to say.  We were asked if there was anything that we wanted to tell the Lt that we didn’t tell the recruiter.

I told the Lt of several counseling sessions I attended on anger management when I was 16, occasional lower back pain with strenuous exercise (karate practice) and a skateboard fall, and an episode of upper chest pain once when I was 12.  At that age I related the pain to a heart attack, not really knowing what a heart attack was.  All of these things had been cleared by the civilian psychologist and the attending Family Practice and Emergency Room physicians at Naval Hospital Camp Pendleton.

In my recruit training I was one of the top performers in the division…assigned as a divisional dental yeoman.  Two weeks later, while sitting in class, I was ordered to go to the hospital to see medical psychologist.  I was asked to complete a psychiatric questionnaire, then saw another Lt. who said that I may have a personality disorder.  I was surprised when I was told that I would be discharged.  My Company Commander attempted to vouch for me based upon his observations in the short time we were together.  He called my parent to see if there was anything that they could do to help retain me in the Navy.

My separation code on my DD 214 is listed as JCF (Erroneous Enlistment).  Although, I signed my delayed entry paperwork prior to my 18th birthday, my parents were told by the recruiter that they did not have to sign any paperwork to permit me to enlist.  There is a specific separation code for either of those two possibilities of separation, neither of which I feel applies to me.

Since being discharged I have work consistently at a local Hollywood Video earning accolades as one of the top performers.  I have been screened by another psychologist at Naval Hospital Camp Pendleton who suggested that I should try this method of correction to you based upon his questions and observations.  Therefore, I respectfully request consideration for a change of separation code, and reenlistment status to RE-1.

The enclosed copies of medical records will attest to the fact that I was physically and mentally fit at the time of my enlistment into the Navy.  Records of the psychological report will be forwarded to you from PsychCare, Inc.  I honestly believe that my early teen experiences were no different that any average male of my generation.  Therefore, I respectfully request consideration in both my separation code and reenlistment code."

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214
Mental Health Consult, dated 040419 (2 pages)
Ambulatory Care Clinic, Automated Version of SF600, dated 010213
Ambulatory Care Clinic, Automated Version of SF600, dated 001123
Family Practice Clinic, Automated Version of SF600, dated 990218
Ambulatory Care Clinic, Automated Version of SF600, dated 980916
Medical Record
Emergency Care and Treatment Record, dated 961006
Copy of Pediatric ECG Analysis
Emergency Medicine Department Nursing Notes (2 pages)
Ambulatory Care Clinic, Automated Version of SF600, dated 991127
Emergency Care and Treatment Record, dated 991127
Family Practice Clinic, Automated Version of SF600, dated 001018
Authorization to Release Information
Confidential Fax Transmittal
Authorization to Release Information
DD Form 149 (Back)
Progress Notes (5 pages)
“The Unfortunate Incident” (2 pages)
Progress Note
“Thoughts and Feelings”
Progress Note
Psycare Initial Evaluation and Development of Treatment Goals Contract (8 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)		020726 - 021215	COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  021216		Date of Discharge:  030110

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  00  25
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  40

Highest Rate:  SR

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMA*		Behavior:  NMA		OTA:  NMA

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

*No marks assigned

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

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

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

021230:	Report of Mental Health Examination:  Applicant failed to disclose history of significant emotional dysregulation and anger management issues.  Applicant was directed by judge to participate in weekly therapy for anger management issues from January 2001 to August 2001.  He has jumped off a second story roof many times in response to frustration and anger, driven recklessly while at age 16 and gotten in more than 60 physical fights.  He has had six jobs and left all without notification due to laziness and anger.  Applicant has significant history of suicidal gestures and when angered is quick to react in very maladaptive and destructive ways.  His history and functioning coupled with poorly developed psychological coping skills places him at a high risk for future behaviors that may prove to be dangerous both to himself and his shipmates.  Applicant diagnosed with a borderline personality disorder, recommended entry level separation due to disqualifying psychiatric condition affecting potential for performance of expected duties and responsibilities.

030103:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a least favorable characterization of general (under honorable conditions) by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by a borderline personality disorder.

030103:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27(b), elected to waive all rights.

030106:	Commanding Officer, Recruit Training Command directed the Applicant's discharge with an uncharacterized service by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20030110 with an uncharacterized service discharge 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:  Normally, to permit relief, an impropriety or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such impropriety or inequity is evident during the Applicant’s enlistment.  The Applicant failed to reveal to his recruiter his extensive history of psychological treatment for anger management and suicidal gestures.  After the Applicant revealed this information during his “Moment of Truth” at recruit training, he received a psychological evaluation, by competent medical authority diagnosing him with a borderline personality disorder.  The Board found that the documentation provided for review does not refute the presumption that the Applicant’s failure to disclose his medical history during the enlistment process constitutes a defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment.  The omission of these facts which, if known at the time of enlistment, would have reasonably been expected to preclude, postpone, or otherwise affect the Applicant’s eligibility for enlistment or induction in the Naval service.  In addition, the documentation available for review did not refute the presumption that his psychiatric conditions still existed during the time of his enlistment, as evidenced by his diagnosed borderline personality disorder.  No other narrative reason other than erroneous enlistment more clearly describes the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s processing for administrative separation.  Relief denied.

By regulation, members discharged within the first 180 days of enlistment are given characterization of service "Uncharacterized" or entry-level separation unless there were unusual circumstances regarding performance or conduct, which would merit an "honorable" characterization.  Applicant's service record did not contain any unusual circumstances during his less than thirty days in the military to warrant a change of discharge to "honorable."  

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 naval service.  The NDRB is authorized, however, to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review.  Examples of documentation that should be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  As of this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation for the Board to consider.  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.  The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to his discharge 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), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 Aug 02 until Present, 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