ex-YNSN, USN 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20090501
Characterization of Service Received:    
Narrative Reason for Discharge:    ERRONEOUS ENTRY (OTHER)
Authority for Discharge:   MILPERSMAN 

Applicant’s Request:  Characterization change to:  
		       Narrative Reason change to:  

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:	USNR (DEP)	19990205 - 19990922  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  19990923	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20001006	Highest Rank/Rate:  YNSN
Length of Service:   Year(s)     Month(s)   14 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  67
Evaluation Marks:	Performance:  NFIR	Behavior:  NFIR	OTA:  NFIR

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	NONE

Periods of UA/CONF:  	NJP:  	`SCM:  	SPCM:  

CC:  	Retention Warning Counseling:  

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

Related to Military Service:	
                                         DD 214:		Service/Medical Record:		Other Records:	

Related to Post-Service Period:	
	Employment:		Finances:		Education/Training:	
	Health/Medical Records:		Substance Abuse:		Criminal Records:	
	Family/Personal Status:		Community Service:		References:	
              Additional Statements:
                             From Applicant:		From/To Representation:		From/To Congress member:	

                    Other Documentation:	

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 12 December 1997 until 
12 June 2001, Article 1910-130, 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, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs, Part V, Para 502, Propriety and Para 503, Equity.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	Wants to receive Montgomery GI Bill benefits.
2.	Discharged due to chronic headaches after being diagnosed with bipolar disorder.

Decision

Date:  20100506		Location:  Washington D.C.	Representation:  

By a vote of  the Characterization shall  .
By a vote of  the Narrative Reason shall  ERRONEOUS ENTRY (OTHER).

Discussion

The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.  In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  The Applicant’s medical record of 23 November 1999 indicates he was evaluated by a neurologist to determine his fitness for flight duty.  The Applicant reported occasional headaches for 2- 4 months with a duration of up to two hours.  The neurologist recommended the Applicant for a waiver after making the following assessment: 1) he has experienced non-debilitating, tension type headaches that did not interfere with his duties and 2) he has completed boot camp, been responsive to simple analgesics, and had only 2 minor sick call visits for complaints regarding his knee and neck.  Per an evaluation of 03 January 2000 the Applicant was seen again by a neurologist at Naval Operational Medicine Institute due to his inability to complete an obstacle course because of headaches.  The neurological evaluation also contained the following information: 1) this was the Applicant’s second evaluation for headaches, 2) the headaches which began about 2 years ago (1998) lasted for hours and interfered with normal activities, including work, 3) he had about 2 headaches a week that were relieved somewhat by Motrin and Tylenol, 4) he had a history of head trauma as a child and at age 16 experienced a brief loss of consciousness, 5) the initial impression was chronic headaches, some severe with rare migraines, and 6) it was recommended that the Applicant be found Not Physically Qualified (NPQ) for aircrew.  The Commanding officer’s (Naval Aviation Schools Command) letter of 04 February 2000 indicates the Applicant was found NPQ from the Aircrewman Candidate School and disenrolled from the program.  

Additionally, the Applicant’s medical record of 03 May 2000 reflects the Applicant had an urgent walk-in psychological evaluation for suicidal risk after 8 months of active duty service.  During this visit the Applicant reported the following: 1) he had experienced intermittent depression since junior high school, 2) felt he could not afford to be happy or something bad would happen to him, 3) the episodes of depression worsened in December 1999 for no apparent reason, and 5) at the time he was experiencing decreased sleep, appetite, energy, motivation, concentration, interest and serious suicidal ideations for two weeks.  On 23 May 2000, the Applicant was placed on medical hold.  On 29 August 2000 a mental health provider at Naval Technical Training Center evaluated the Applicant and indicated: 1) the appropriate diagnosis was Bipolar II, 2) the Applicant was to receive increased doses of Lithium and 3) his medical board would take 6-8 weeks.  Pursuant to a letter dated 19 September 2000 the Applicant requested a waiver of his medical board for Bipolar disorder, indicating that it was not gravely disabling and that he would rather be administratively discharged to save time and get back to school.  A staff psychologist at the, Branch Medical Clinic, Meridian drafted a memorandum of 19 September 2000 indicating that the Applicant was stable, fully competent for self-care, completely able to function at work and in a social environment, and his outcome would not be improved by remaining in the Navy until his board was completed, and he was unlikely to receive significant disability benefits, as the mood disorder was pre-existing. 

Per the Applicant’s DD Form 214 he was administratively separated based on erroneous entry (other) and given a separation code of JFC indicating he was not entitled to an administrative separation board based on his years of service and recommended characterization of service.  The NDRB did not have the Applicant’s administrative separation package to determine whether or not the Applicant waived  rights to consult with qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request a review by the general courts-martial convening authority.
:  (Nondecisional) The Applicant is seeking an upgrade so that he can receive Montgomery GI Bill benefits.  The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant is seeking an upgrade to Honorable and contends that “a change is in order due to the fact that I was only discharged for chronic headaches after I was diagnosed with Bi-polar disorder.”  In reviewing this case the presumption of regularity of government affairs was applied in the absence of a complete service record, administrative separation package and incomplete medical records.  Pursuant to MILPERSMAN 1910-130 (formerly 3620280), a member may be separated on the basis of erroneous enlistment when the enlistment would not have occurred if relevant facts had been known by Navy Department or had appropriate directives been followed, the enlistment was not the result of fraudulent conduct on the part of member, and the defect is unchanged in any material respect.  Based on the foregoing evidence as previously discussed, it has been determined that the requirements for separation due to erroneous enlistment have been met since relevant facts regarding the Applicant’s pre-service medical history of bipolar disorder was not disclosed by the Applicant prior to his enlistment and was not known by the Navy Department.  The record reflects that while being evaluated for headaches it was determined that the Applicant had a bipolar condition for which he was subsequently processed for a medical board.  However, while in the process of being medically evaluated the Applicant requested to be administratively separated for the bipolar condition that was not known at the time he entered active duty.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety in the discharge action but did discern an inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service.  For discharges based on erroneous enlistment, the discharge should be Honorable unless there exists justification for a General (Under Honorable Conditions), Under Other Than Honorable Conditions, or Entry Level Separation characterization.  The Board found no counseling’s, nonjudicial punishments or evaluations to warrant a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization.  Therefore, the Board voted unanimously to change the character of the discharge to Honorable.

Summary:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service,  record entries, and discharge process, the Board found   Therefore, based on the absence of misconduct or adverse performance evaluation and the Applicant’s medical condition the awarded characterization of service shall   and the narrative reason for separation shall remain ERRONEOUS ENTRY (OTHER).

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

Complaint Procedures:  If you believe 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 to the Joint Service Review Activity, OUSD (P&R) PI-LP, The Pentagon, Washington, DC  20301-4000.  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.”

Additional Reviews:  After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s 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.  There are veterans organizations such as the American Legion and the Association of Service Disable Veterans that are willing to provide guidance to former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade.  If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted his opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100 for further review.

Service Benefits:  The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining veterans benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.

Reenlistment/RE-code:  Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, the NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code.  Only the BCNR can make changes to reenlistment codes.  Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.  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.

Medical Conditions and Misconduct:  DoD disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation.  Appropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons.  Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board, and is processed subsequently for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings.  If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct or for any basis wherein an Other Than Honorable discharge is authorized, the medical board report is filed in the member’s terminated health record.  Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or other medical related reasons.  Only the BCNR can grant this type of narrative reason change.

Automatic Upgrades - There is no law or regulation that provides for an unfavorable discharge to be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct subsequent to leaving naval service.  

Post-Service Conduct:  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  Outstanding post-service conduct, 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, is considered during Board reviews.  Documentation to support a post-service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s birth certificates (if applicable); character witness statements; documentation of community or church service; certification of non-involvement with civil authorities; evidence of financial stability or letters of good standing from banks, credit card companies, or other financial institutions; attendance at or completion of higher education (official transcripts); and documentation of a drug-free lifestyle.   The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate  in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

Issues Concerning Bad-Conduct Discharges (BCD): Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts, issues relating to the Applicant’s innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief.  With respect to a discharge adjudged by a special court-martial, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency.  Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed.  The NDRB does not have the jurisdictional authority to review a discharge or dismissal resulting from a general court-martial.

Board Membership:  The names and votes of the members of the NDRB 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