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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

  ex-SN, USN
Docket No. ND05-01168

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050708.  The Applicant requests the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed.  The Applicant requests 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 20060131.  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 reason for discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain Uncharacterized by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to fraudulent entry.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“I believe I was discharged erroneously.  The reason cited for my discharge was a fraudulent entry.  I am unaware of any reasons why the military would come to that conclusion.  All the questions answered on the application was done so truthfully.” 

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214
Ltr from Commanding Officer, Recruit Training Command, dtd Jan 31, 2005  (2 pages)
Administrative Separation Processing Notification Procedure, dtd Jan 27, 2005  (2 pages)
Recruit Evaluation Unit Administrative Separation Recommendation, dtd Jan 25, 2005  (3 pages)
Medical Prescreen of Medical History Report, dtd April 21, 2004
Applicant’s transcript from Albany State University, dtd issued Jan 2005  (3 pages)
Applicant’s Bachelor of Arts degree, dtd May 10, 2003
Applicant’s Diploma from Westlake High School, dtd June 12, 1999

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	20040429 – 20050109		COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  20050110		Date of Discharge:  20050203

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  00  24  
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  None
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  24

Years Contracted:  4 (12 month extension)

Education Level:  Bachelor of Arts			AFQT:  61

Highest Rate:  SN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NA*		Behavior:  NA*		OTA:  NA*

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  NDSM

* Not Available

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

UNCHARACTERIZED/FRAUDULENT ENTRY INTO MILITARY SERVICE, authority:  MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-134 (formerly 3630100).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

040423:	Medical Advisor, Navy Recruiting Command, advised the Commander, Navy Recruiting Command that the service member based on a review of available medical information, subject Applicant does not meet established physical standards due to excessive refraction.
	Waiver of the physical standards is recommended.

040423:	Commander, Navy Recruiting Command, approved a waiver of physical standards.

050125:	Recruit Mental Health Evaluation:  The Naval Security Group Field Office referred Applicant to REU for a special psychological evaluation as part of a screening for intelligence work associated with his rate.  Per interview report by Special Representative M.T. D_, Applicant’s history of undeveloped social interaction, lack of employment history including odd job outside of his house to raise money, a mental health visit because of parent’s concern about his poor social skills, procrastination and poor grades in high school, a traffic citation, and his current performance in boot camp raised concerns about Applicant’s suitability for security clearance.
	Applicant was given psychological testing (i.e., MMPI-2) that was valid.  According to testing results, Applicant presented himself as having no faults.  Projective testing suggested underdeveloped stress coping skills, poor social relationships, and hyper-sensitivity to social interactions.  This pattern is typically associated with personality disorders in the schizoid range.  Applicant’s current and past behavior patterns meet criterion for Schizoid Personality Disorder with Avoidant Features, EPTE (301.20) and is consistent with psychological testing.
	Assessment:
Axis I:  No diagnosis
	Axis II:  Schizoid Personality Disorder, 301.20 EPTS with Avoidant Features.
	Plan & Recommendation:
	Entry level separation due to disqualifying psychiatric condition affecting Applicant’s performance of expected duties and responsibilities while on active duty and poses risk if retained in USN.

050127:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of erroneous enlistment and fraudulent entry into Naval Service.

050127:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

050131:	Commanding Officer, Recruit Training Command, directed the Applicant’s discharge with an uncharacterized service by reason of erroneous enlistment and fraudulent entry into Naval Service.  Commanding Officer’s comments:  “As evidenced by the listed enclosures, an erroneous and fraudulent enlistment has occurred.  SN M_ (Applicant)’s psychiatric condition affects his potential for performance of expected duties and responsibilities while on active duty and poses a risk if he is retained in the naval service.”

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20050203 by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to fraudulent entry (A) with a service characterization of uncharacterized.  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 (B and C).  

The Applicant contends that he was discharged erroneously because all questions answered on his application were done so truthfully.  The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant's discharge, will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted.  A member may be separated for defective enlistment and inductions – fraudulent entry into the Naval service for effecting a fraudulent enlistment by falsely representing or deliberately concealing any qualification or disqualification prescribed by law, regulation, or order.  The evidence of record indicates that during the enlistment process, the Applicant consistently denied any history of mental illness or mental evaluations.  On DD Form 2807, Question 17g, the Applicant denied having ever been evaluated or treated for a mental condition.  Likewise on DD Form 2807-2, Question 16, the Applicant denied having ever seen a psychiatrist, psychologist, counselor or other professional for any reason including counseling or treatment for school, adjustment, family, marriage or any other problem.  While on active duty, the Applicant submitted to a mental health evaluation in accordance with his screening for the intelligence field.  During the course of this evaluation, the Applicant conceded that he had seen a mental health professional due to his parent’s concerns over his poor social skills.  Based upon the evidence of record, the Board was convinced that the Applicant wrongfully concealed his history of mental counseling for the sole purpose of effecting his enlistment.  The Applicant's DD Form 214, Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, indicates he was separated by reason of defective enlistment –fraudulent entry.  No other Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describe why the Applicant was discharged.  To change the Narrative Reason for Separation would be inappropriate.  Relief denied.

By regulation, members notified of intended recommendation for discharge within the first 180 days of enlistment are eligible for an uncharacterized or entry-level separation characterization of service.  Unless there were unusual circumstances regarding a servicemember’s performance or conduct that would merit an honorable characterization, an uncharacterized discharge is generally considered the most appropriate characterization of a member’s service.  The Applicant's service record did not contain any unusual circumstances during his less than one month in the military to warrant a change of discharge to honorable.

The Applicant should be aware that, with respect to nonservice-related administrative matters, i.e., VA benefits, educational pursuits, and especially civilian employment, an uncharacterized separation is considered the equivalent of an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

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), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 Aug 02 until 2 May 2005, 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 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety.

C.  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