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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-AN, USN
Docket No. ND06-00614

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20060406.  The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed to “Entry Level Separation.”  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 20070125.  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 General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to fraudulent entry.

PART I - ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Decisional Issues

Applicant claims her recruiter told her not to worry about her debt issues.  The Applicant  is currently resolving her credit issues and would like to return to active duty.

Documentation

In addition to the service and medical records, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:

Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 4)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	20011020 - 20020205	COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  20020206		Date of Discharge:  20040929

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  07  24
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  None
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  20

Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  34

Highest Rate:  AN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.7 (3)		Behavior:  3.0 (3)		OTA:  3.33

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  Sea Service Deployment Ribbon(2), Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Navy “E” Ribbon, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Meritorious Unit Commendation

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

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

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

040606:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Failure to meet body composition assessment standards.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

040616:	Commander, Navy Personnel Command.  It was determined that member failed to disclose adverse financial information on the SF-86 completed when enlisting in the Navy.

040715:	Evaluation Report and Counseling Record:  Block 41:  Comments:  She is currently experiencing some financial difficulty, but with her plan of action to financial responsibility, she will put this behind her and continue to be a valuable team member.

040929:	DD Form 214:  Applicant discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of defective enlistments and inductions - fraudulent entry into the naval service.

Service Record did not contain the Administrative Discharge package. 
Service Record was missing elements of the Summary of Service.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20040929 by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to fraudulent entry (A) with a service characterization of general (under honorable conditions).  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 Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (D).

The Applicant is requesting and honorable discharge and her narrative reason changed to entry level separation.  For the edification of the Applicant, 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. The Applicant’s period of service exceeds the 180 day period.  Relief in the case of the narrative reason is not warranted.

When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.  A general discharge is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member’s military record.  The Applicant’s service was marred by one retention warnings and a letter from the Director, Department of the Navy, Central Adjudication Facility dated 20040429, denying the Applicant a security clearance due to failing to disclose adverse financial information on the SF-86 questionnaire completed when enlisting in the Navy.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of her service, reflects her willful failure to meet the requirements of her contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of her characterization of service.  Relief is not warranted.

The Applicant claims she is currently resolving her credit issues and would like to return to active duty.  The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant.  Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have occurred during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question.  Although the administrative package was not available for review, the board presumed regularity in this case.  The Board discovered no impropriety after a review of Applicant’s case.  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 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 sustained good credit history, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any post-service documentation to consider mitigating the misconduct that resulted in the characterization of discharge.  Relief denied.

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 additional evidence related to this 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.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs.

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 Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Instruction.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the Instruction 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 Instruction 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