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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD06-00529

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20060302.  The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  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 20070118.  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 erroneous entry.

PART I - ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Decisional Issues

Impropriety:  Applicant was unaware of his medical condition.

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 4)
Letter from Applicant, dtd February 22, 2006
Letter from D. L. K_, BCNR, dtd December 27, 2005
DD Form 149, dtd October 20, 2005
Letter to BCNR from Applicant, dtd October 20, 2005 (2 pgs)
Excerpts from Medical Record (9 pgs)
Excerpts from Service Record (12 pgs)
Non-military Medical Documents (31 pgs)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USMCR (DEP)	20040923 - 20050213	COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  20050214		Date of Discharge:  20050414

Length of Service (years, months, days):

Active:    00  02  01  
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  None
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  19

Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  43

Highest Rank:  PFC				MOS:  9900

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  NA*		Conduct:  NA*

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as stated on the DD Form 214):  None

*Not Applicable

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

UNCHARACTERIZED/ERRONEOUS ENTRY, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6204.2.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

050404:	Medical Evaluation by K_ C. C_ (PA-C Med Boards, MCDR Parris Island SC), Charleston NH, SC indicates applicant was referred from the Sports Medicine Clinic for discharge evaluation.  The Applicant was evaluated in Sports Medicine for a shoulder contusion initially.  During his evaluation, he admitted to chronic back pain.  Examination revealed an increased Iordotic curve of his thoracic spine.  X-rays were obtained and reported as consistent with Scheuermann’s Disease, therefore, it was recommended that he be discharged from the military.
	A/P: 1. Juvenile Osteochondrosis of Spine
	Disposition:  Released w/Work/Duty Limitations.

050404:	Medical Disposition Officer, K. C. C_, PA-C found Applicant did not meet the minimum standards for enlistment.  “Applicant’s present condition is “Not Physically Qualified for Enlistment”.  Diagnosis: Scheuermann’s Disease.”  Recommendation:  Discharge by reason of Erroneous Enlistment.  

050404:	Applicant found physically qualified for separation.
 
050405:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge (entry-level separation) by reason of erroneous entry.  The factual basis for this recommendation was Scheuermann’s Disease.  

050405:	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.

050407:	Commanding Officer recommended separation by reason of erroneous entry.

050414:	Commanding Officer, Recruit Training Regiment, approved the Applicant’s discharge.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20050414 by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous 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).

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 three months in the military to warrant a change of discharge to honorable.  Relief is not warranted.

The Applicant contends that an erroneous enlistment did not occur because there was no preexisting condition and that the condition was unknown to the Applicant.  Regulations stipulate that a Marine may be separated on the basis of an erroneous enlistment, induction, reenlistment or extension of enlistment if:
•	Enlistment would not have occurred had the relevant facts been known by the Marine Corps or had appropriate directives been followed;
•	The action was not the result of fraudulent conduct on the part of the Marine; and
•	The defect is unchanged in material respects.
Competent medical authority diagnosed the Applicant with Scheuermann’s Disease, a condition which existed prior to enlistment and would have prevented the Applicant’s enlistment.  No other narrative reason for separation more clearly describes why the Applicant was discharge.  Relief denied.

The following is included for the edification of the Applicant.  The Applicant was not discharged by reason of fraudulent enlistment, which requires s deliberate material misrepresentation, including the omission or concealment of facts which, if known at the time, would have reasonably been expected to preclude, postpone, or otherwise affect the Marine's eligibility for enlistment or induction.  Additionally, the Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the Naval Discharge Review Board.  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.  

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 Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, MCO P1900.16F), effective 
01 September 2001 until Present, paragraph 6204, DEFECTIVE ENLISTMENT AND INDUCTION.

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