ex-SR, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20091124
Characterization of Service Received:  
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   
Authority for Discharge:  MILPERSMAN 

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:	USNR (DEP)	20070430 - 20070522  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  20070523	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20070626	Highest Rank/Rate:  SR
Length of Service:   Year(s)     Month(s)   04 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  99
Evaluation Marks:	Performance:  NOB	Behavior:  NOB	OTA:  NOB

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:		Rehabilitation/Treatment:		Criminal Records:	
	Personal Documentation:		Community Service:		References:	
	Department of VA letter:		Other Documentation:	
		Additional Statements:
	From Applicant:		From/To Representation:		From/To Congress member:	

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 11 effective 20 June 2005 until Present, 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.	Nondecisional issues:  The Applicant seeks an upgrade in characterization of service at discharge and a change in re-enlistment code in order to facilitate enlistment in the United States Air Force.  

2.	Decisional issues: The Applicant did not identify any issues of equity or propriety for the NDRB’s consideration. 

Decision

Date:  20110211		Location:  Washington D.C.	Representation:  

By a vote of  the Characterization shall  .
By a vote of  the Narrative Reason shall  .

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 identified no decisional issues for the NDRB’s consideration.  However, the NDRB completed a thorough review of the Applicant’s military service record, administrative separation package, the circumstances that led to her discharge, and the discharge process to ensure her discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.    

The Applicant enlisted in the Navy at age 23 without requirement for waiver of any enlistment standards or requirements.  Her record of service includes no NAVPERS 1070/613 retention-counseling warnings and no judicial or non-judicial punishments.  The local Separation Authority at the Naval Recruit Training Command, Great Lakes, separated the Applicant pursuant to Article 1910-130 of the Naval Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN) – Defective Enlistment and Induction, Erroneous Enlistment.  On 05 June 2007, the Applicant was notified of the command’s recommendation for separation using the notification procedure.  She was advised that the command was recommending she be separated pursuant to Article 1910-130 (Erroneous Enlistment) and that the least favorable characterization of service possible was a General (Under Honorable Conditions).  The Applicant elected to waive her right to consult with qualified legal counsel and chose not to submit a written statement to the Separation Authority.  On 19 June 2007, the Separation Authority directed that the Applicant be discharged for Defective Enlistment or Induction – Erroneous Enlistment and that the Applicant’s characterization of service at discharge be Uncharacterized.  The Separation further directed that the re-enlistment code assigned be RE-3E (Eligible for reenlistment except for disqualifying factor; inducted in error).     

:  (Nondecisional) - The Applicant seeks an upgrade in characterization of service at discharge and a change in re-enlistment code in order to facilitate enlistment in the United States Air Force.  The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge characterization of service for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.  Additionally, the NDRB has no jurisdiction or authority over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces and is not authorized to change a reenlistment code.  Reenlistment policy is established by the service headquarters.  A request for a waiver may be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter; neither a less than fully honorable discharge, nor an unfavorable "RE" code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment.  

The NDRB is not authorized to change the reentry code as she requested; only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.  The Applicant should petition the BCNR using DD Form-149.  When requesting this change, the Applicant should provide as much documentation regarding her current health status as possible.  Their address is:  Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100.  Further information can be found online at http://www.donhq.navy.mil/bcnr/bcnr.htm.  

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant did not identify issues regarding the propriety or equity of her discharge action for the NDRB’s consideration.   The NDRB conducted a thorough review of the Applicant’s military service record, administrative separation package, the circumstances that led to her discharge, and the discharge process to ensure her discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.  In accordance with the MILPERSMAN, a member of the Naval Service may be separated on the basis of erroneous enlistment when that enlistment would not have occurred if relevant facts had been known by the Department of Navy and the enlistment was not the result of fraudulent conduct on the part of the service member.  In the Applicant’s specific case, she was separated due to not meeting physical standards for enlistment in accordance with the Navy Manual of the Medical Department (MANMED); the Applicant was found to be pregnant upon arrival to recruit training during her routine medical in-processing.  The Applicant’s original enlistment physical - conducted upon joining the Delayed Entry Program - confirms that she was not pregnant at the time of induction or enlistment.  Finally, the Applicant contended that she was unaware, at the time of shipping to recruit training, that she was pregnant.

The Applicant was separated from the service due to medically not meeting the physical standards for enlistment.  An appropriately credentialed medical health care provider diagnosed the Applicant’s pregnancy; after follow-up and confirmation, the medical care provider notified the command of the disqualifying condition and recommended that she be separated due to  Erroneous Enlistment pursuant to Article 1910-130 of the MILPERSMAN.  The Applicant’s medically disqualifying condition was diagnosed appropriately and a review of her enlistment physical confirms she was not pregnant upon induction.  Moreover, the Applicant claims that she was not aware of the pregnancy when she accepted orders and shipped to the Recruit Training Command.  Based on a review of all the available records and the Applicant’s official statement, the NDRB determined that the Applicant was separated properly from the Naval Service as authorized by MILPERSMAN 1910-130.  As such, on the basis of propriety, no relief is warranted.  

In accordance with the MILPERSMAN, separation initiated while a member is within the first 180 days of continuous active duty will be described as an Uncharacterized entry level separation except when the characterization of service as Under Other Than Honorable (OTH) is authorized or Honorable is clearly warranted.  The Applicant had no misconduct that would rate an OTH discharge, and there was no evidence of unusual circumstances involving personal conduct and performance that would merit a recommendation for an Honorable characterization to be approved by the Secretary of the Navy.  Since the Applicant served only 11 days of active duty service, an Uncharacterized discharge is considered the correct and the most appropriate characterization of service.  After a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the Applicant’s discharge and her discharge process, the NDRB found no issues of impropriety or inequity.

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, the awarded characterization of service shall   and the narrative reason for separation shall remain .

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of  discharge.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically the paragraphs titled Additional Reviews, Automatic Upgrades, and Post-Service Conduct.

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 Disabled American 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 their 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.

Employment/Educational Opportunities:  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.

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