ex-PCSN, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20160317
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   
Reenlistment Code:  
Authority for Discharge:   MILPERSMAN 

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:	USNR (DEP)	20030711 - 20030811  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Current Enlistment:  20030812	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension 
Date of Discharge:  20040920	Highest Rank/Rate:  PCSN
Length of Service:   Year(s)     Month(s)   09 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  59
Evaluation Marks:	Performance:  NFIR	Behavior:  NFIR	OTA:  NFIR

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	 

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJP:    SCM:     SPCM:     CC:      Retention Warning Counseling:  

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

	Block 1, Name, should read:  “A_, T_ L_”
	  “FRAUDULENT ENTRY”
	
The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.

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:	

Types of Witnesses Who Testified

	Expert:		Character:	

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 August 2002 until 2 May 2005, Article 1910-134, 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 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.	The Applicant contends her discharge is improper because she denies she has a mental health condition of Personality Disorder.
2.	The Applicant contends her discharge is improper because her pre-service hospitalization for mental health treatment was the result of her being raped.
3.	The Applicant contends her discharge is inequitable because it is based on retaliation by her command after she complained of sexual harassment.
4.	The Applicant contends her discharge is inequitable because she had a perfect record in the Navy with no disciplinary actions.
5.	The Applicant contends her discharge is inequitable because she was cleared for enlistment by her family physician.
6.	The Applicant contends her discharge is inequitable because the pre-service medical examination found her psychiatrist condition as “normal.”
7.	The Applicant contends that her discharge is improper because Navy medical authorities stated she is “Psychiatrically fit for full duty but unsuitable for continued military service.”

Decision

Date:  20160505		Location:  Washington D.C.	Representation:  

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

Discussion

The Naval Discharge Review Board (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 Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances that led to  discharge and the discharge process to ensure  discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.  The Applicant’s record of service included her in-patient hospitalization for admitted suicide ideation and mental health evaluation while at her first operational duty station after graduation from her primary military specialty school for Postal Clerk.  The Applicant reported a history of pre-service mental health treatment during her mental health evaluation that she had not revealed during her enlistment processing.  Based on the Applicant’s admitted omissions and false official statements during enlistment,  command administratively processed  for separation for reason of Fraudulent Entry into Military Service.  When notified of administrative separation processing using the  procedure, the Applicant waived  right to consult with a qualified counsel, but exercised her right to submit a written statement.  

As a result of the Applicant’s claim that a mental health diagnosis impacted their discharge, and in accordance with U.S. Code, Title X, Section 1553 (e)(2), the Naval Discharge Review Board included a member who is a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist, or a physician with special training on mental health disorder.  In accordance with section 1553 (d)(2), the service secretary accorded the case sufficient priority to achieve an expedited resolution and a final decision. 

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends her discharge is improper because she denies she has a mental health condition of Personality Disorder.  The Applicant’s service medical record shows that she was evaluated by Navy mental health authorities after she admitted suicide ideations to her command.  The Applicant was diagnosed with a mental health condition:  Personality disorder not otherwise specified.  However, the Applicant was discharged from the Navy for reason of Fraudulent Entry into Military Service for having falsely omitted from her pre-service medical history her previous mental health treatment for suicidal ideation and three-day hospitalization for mental health evaluation.  Had the Applicant reported her true medical history at the time of her enlistment processing she would have required a medical waiver to enter into military service.  As the Applicant was discharged for Fraudulent Entry and not for Personality disorder, the NDRB did not find any merit to her issue.  Relief denied

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends her discharge is improper because her pre-service hospitalization for mental health treatment was the result of her being raped.  The Applicant reported to Navy mental health authorities in August 2004 that she was hospitalized and treated for depression and suicide ideation in 2001 or 2002 following an alleged rape by her former boyfriend.  However, during the Applicant’s enlistment processing and medical history report, the Applicant did not disclose her history of mental health treatment and hospitalization as required.  The Applicant falsely marked “no” on questions about if she had ever been a patient in any type of hospital, have you ever received counselling of any type, have you ever had depression or excessive worry, have you ever been evaluated or treated for a mental condition, and, have you ever attempted suicide.  The NDRB determined that the Applicant’s record supports her discharge for reason of Fraudulent Entry into Military Service; therefore, her discharge is proper.  Relief denied.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends her discharge is inequitable because it is based on retaliation by her command after she complained of sexual harassment.  The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs.  The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support her issue.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that her command discharged her in retaliation for her making claims of sexual harassment.  The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.  Relief denied.

4:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends her discharge is inequitable because she had a perfect record in the Navy with no disciplinary actions.  The Applicant served a total of 13 months active service in the Navy and had one observed performance evaluation report that marked her overall Individual Traits Average as 3.00, and her rater recommended her as “Must Promote.”  Although the Applicant feels her service warranted an Honorable discharge, her record shows she entered into service by false official statements by wrongfully omitting for purpose of deceiving the Navy about her previous medical history of suicide ideation and hospitalization for mental health reasons.  Therefore, the NDRB determined the Applicant’s General characterization of service is warranted for Fraudulent Entry into Military Service.  Relief denied.

5:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends her discharge is inequitable because she was cleared for enlistment by her family physician.  The NDRB reviewed the Applicant’s issue but determined it is not relevant to her discharge for Fraudulent Entry into Military Service.  Relief denied.

6:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends her discharge is inequitable because the pre-service medical examination diagnosed her psychiatric condition as “normal.”  The Applicant’s discharge from the Navy is based on her Fraudulent Entry into Military Service by falsely answering questions about her medical history that denied any mental health treatment, counselling, depression, hospitalization, or suicide attempts.  Based on the false statements the Applicant made about her medical history, the Applicant was not evaluated by mental health specialists prior to her entry into military service.  The Applicant’s psychiatric condition was determined to be normal at the time of her enlistment because she omitted her history of past psychiatric treatment.  Relief denied. 

7:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends that her discharge is improper because Navy medical authorities stated she is “Psychiatrically fit for full duty but unsuitable for continued military service.”  The NDRB found her contention is a distinction without a difference.  The Applicant was evaluated by mental health authorities because she expressed depression and suicide ideation to her command.  The distinction that the Navy Psychiatrist made in his disposition and recommendation for administrative separation in the case of the Applicant was that the Applicant’s mental health condition did not preclude her ability to be responsible for her actions, but that she demonstrated she was at risk for harming herself if retained on active service in the Navy.  Therefore, it was the opinion of the Psychiatrist that the Applicant was unsuitable for continued military service.  The Applicant suggests that the opinion of the Psychiatrist is contradictory, but the NDRB determined the Applicant’s behavior confirmed the meaning of the diagnosis and recommendation for expeditious administrative separation.  Relief denied. 

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 remain GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) and the narrative reason for separation shall remain FRAUDULENT ENTRY.

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 for additional information.

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), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490, or http://www.secnav.navy.mil/mra/bcnr/Pages/default.aspx 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:  Effective 6 February 2015, the NDRB is authorized to change a NDRB Applicant’s Reenlistment Code if related to an accompanying change in discharge characterization or narrative, but this authority is strictly limited to those cases where an applicant’s narrative reason or characterization of discharge is changed and that change warrants revision of the previously issued reenlistment code.  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