DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TRG
Docket No:
16 July 1999
7325-98
From:
To:
Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
Secretary of the Navy
Subj
RECORD OF -
__
Ref:
(a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552
End:
(1) DD Form 149 w/attachinents
(2) Case Summary
(3) Subject’s naval record
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a
1.
former enlisted member of the United States Navy filed enclosure
(1) with this Board requesting that her reenlistment code be
changed.
2.
The Board, consisting of Mr. Mathews, Mr. Dunn and Ms.
McCormick, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and
injustice on 13 July 1999 and, pursuant to its regulations,
determined that the corrective action indicated below should be
taken on the available evidence of record.
considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval
records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
Documentary material
The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining
3.
to Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice, finds as
follows:
a.
Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all
administrative remedies available under existing law and
regulations within the Department of the Navy.
b.
Enclosure (1) was filed in a timely manner.
Petitioner enlisted in the Navy on 29 October 1996 at
On 19 November 1996 she was diagnosed with asthma.
c.
age 20.
doctor notes that “this condition was not correctable to meet
Navy standards” and recommended administrative separation.
on the doctors recommendation, she was processed for an
administrative separation due to erroneous enlistment.
connection with this processing, she waived all of her procedural
rights.
entry level separation and she was so separated on 28 November
1996.
The narrative reason for separation is “Erroneous Entry
(other)” and the Separation Program Designator (SPD) is “JFC”.
At that time she was not recommended for reenlistment and was
assigned an RE—4 reenlistment code.
On 26 November 1996, the commanding officer directed an
In
The
Based
d.
Petitioner contends that she does not have asthma and
requests that her reenlistment code be changed.
before coming in the Navy she could run two miles without
difficulty.
function tests (PFT) which she contends show that she does not
have asthma.
She had submitted several post service pulmonary
She states that
e.
Attached to enclosure (2) is an advisory opinion from
the Pulmonary Division, National Naval Medical Center.
advisory opinion states, in part, as follows:
The
The information obtained to this point was
suggestive of asthma, but was not sufficient to allow a
diagnosis of asthma to be made.
Fortunately, (she) had further testing performed
after being discharged from the Navy. ...
indication listed is wheezing and shortness of breath.
This information, in conjunction with the date obtained
by the physicians at Great Lakes RTC is sufficient to
establish the diagnosis of asthma (airways obstruction
on more than one occasion with reversibility and
symptoms).
The PFT
My recommendation is~o not modify/correct the
The available information supports
discharge status.
the diagnosis of asthma and the post—service medical
information confirms this impression of the physician
at Great Lakes.
have asthma and was enlisted in error.
My opinion is that she does indeed
f.
Regulations allow for the assignment of an RE—3E or an
RE-4 reenlistment code when an SPD code of JFC is used.
CONCLUSION:
The Board notes the comments from the National Naval
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the
Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants favorable
action.
Medical Center and believes that Petitioner probably has asthma
and was properly separated from the Navy.
also notes that based on the available documentation, the
diagnosis cannot be conclusive.
indication in the record that Petitioner had any problems in
recruit training except those directly related to the diagnosed
asthma.
reenlistment code is inappropriate and should now be changed to
the less restrictive RE-3E.
an evaluation of her physical status is required before an
enlistment can be authorized.
Therefore, the Board concludes that the RE-4
Additionally, there is no
However, the Board
This code will alert recruiters that
2
The Board further concludes that this Report of Proceedings
should be filed in Petitioner’s naval record so that all future
reviewers will be aware of the diagnosis of asthma and understand
the reason for the change in the reenlistment code.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that
a.
she was assigned an RE—3E reenlistment code on 28 November 1996
vice the RE—4 reenlistment code now of record.
That this Report of Proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s
b.
naval record.
It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board’s
4.
review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and
complete record of the Board’s proceedings in the above entitled
matter.
ROBERT D. Z SALMAN
Recorder
ALAN E. GOLDSMITH
Acting Recorder
Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section
5.
6(e) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of
Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(e))
and having assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby
announced that the foregoing corrective action, taken under the
authority of reference (a), has been approved by the Board on
behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.
Executive
3
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | NC9807325
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 TRG Docket No: 7325-98 16 July 1999 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF 4% Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the United States Navy filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that her reenlistment code be changed. Based on the doctors...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001909C070206
She was diagnosed with bronchitis and given some medication. The applicant's service medical records are not available. The evidence (the EPSBD proceedings) she provided does not state she completed a methacoline challenge test.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 01101-03
S Docket No: 1101-03 4 September 2003 DEPARTMENT Oi THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVALRECORD ANNEX NAVY 2 WASHINGTON DC 20370-510 0 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj : FORME REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD ’ Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that her naval record be corrected to show that she was received a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02489-07
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting a change in his reenlistment code.2. With his application, Petitioner states that when asked in recruit training if he ever had asthma prior to entering the service, he initially circled “NO”, but when he was diagnosed with asthma, he changed his answer to “YES”. In the doctor’s letter he stated, in part, that after reviewing his records, Petitioner...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07730-01
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that her naval record be corrected to show that she was assigned a reenlistment code more favorable than the code of RE-4 she was assigned on 30 July 1998. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Hogue, Kastner and allegations of error and injustice on 1 November 2001 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010220
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 10 April 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060010220 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant's service and dependent medical records are not associated with the file. The applicant was determined to be medically unacceptable and it recommended the case be referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04726-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting session, considered your application on 5 September 2002. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. In my opinion, the patient likely has mild asthma.
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900965
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Seeking to reenlist and request my reentry code changed.2. The Applicant is seeking an upgrade in the characterization of her service to Honorable and a change in her narrative reason (unspecified) based on the contention that her discharge was incorrect becauseshe does not have asthma. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01634
She sought care in Sep 03 and was diagnosed with asthma based on clinical history and PFTs showing mild obstruction to airflow and response to treatment with bronchodilator. Medical standards for continued military duty indicate that asthma, recurrent bronchospasm, or reactive airway disease, unless due to well- defined avoidable precipitant cause is disqualifying for worldwide duty. A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR9127 13
The Board, consisting of Mr. Zsalman, Mr. Rothlein, and Ms. Henkel, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 23 July 2014 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the partial corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. 1 CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board was persuaded that Petitioner’s RE-3E (inducted/enlisted -in error) reentry code was correctly assigned. That...