Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05274-99
Original file (05274-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

Y

2 NAW ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 203704100

JRE
Docket No: 5274-99
16 June 2000

From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To:

Secretary of the Navy

Subj:

FORMER.
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD

Ref: (a)

10 U.S.C. 1552

Encl:

(1)
(2)

DD Form 149
Subject’s naval record

1. 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 he was not discharged because of osteoporosis, and that his reenlistment code be
changed.

2. The Board, consisting of Ms. 
LeBlanc and Messrs. 
Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 8 June 
determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available
evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the
enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.

Caron and Milner reviewed
20 and, pursuant to its regulations,

3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining 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.

c. Petitioner enlisted in the Marine Corps on 11 March 1996. He experienced bilateral
knee pain after commencing training, and was ultimately given diagnoses of stress fracture,
left tibia, and avascular necrosis versus transient osteoporosis of the right femoral head. In
the opinion of the orthopedic specialist who evaluated Petitioner, it was unclear whether the
latter condition existed prior to Petitioner ’s enlistment, or was incurred in training. As
Petitioner apparently indicated that he did not want to be evaluated by medical or physical
evaluation boards, he was recommended for discharge for failure to meet minimum physical
standards for enlistment. He was discharged by reason of  “Defective Enlistment 
&
Induction-Erroneous Enlistment-OSTEOPOROSIS” on 9 May 1996, and assigned a

reenlistment code of 

RE-3F, to indicate he had failed to complete recruit training.

d.

In support of the application, Petitioner has submitted medical evidence which is to

the effect that he does not suffer from osteoporosis.

e. DOD Directive 6130.3, Physical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment, and

.9.13, provides that osteoporosis is condition which is

Induction, 2 May 1994, paragraph El 
disqualifying for enlistment.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that
although Petitioner may have suffered from transient osteoporosis, rather than avascular
necrosis, the actual diagnosis in unclear.
In any event, it does not appear that he suffered
from generalized osteoporosis as may be inferred from the narrative reason for his separation
as shown on his DD Form 214. The Board concludes that it would be in the interest of
justice to resolve doubt in his favor, and change the basis for his discharge to condition, not
a disability, interfering with duty, and his reenlistment code to RE-3P.

RECOMMENDATION:

a. That Petitioner ’s naval record be corrected to show that he was discharged from the

Marine Corps on 9 May 1996 by reason of a condition, not a disability, interfering with
duty, and that he was assigned a reenlistment code of 

RE-3P, vice RE-3F.

b. That a copy of this Report of Proceedings be filed in Petitioner ’s naval record.

4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(c)) it is certified that a quorum was
present at the Board ’s 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. ZSALMAN
Recorder

LY Acting Recorder

5. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section 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.



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05561-10

    Original file (05561-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected by changing block 27 (Reentry Code) of his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) from RE-4 (not recommended for reenlistment) to RE-1 (recommended for retention) or RE-2 (ineligible for reenlistment) . The Board finds that neither an RE-1 nor RE-2 reentry...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 00674-05

    Original file (00674-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected to show that he was honorably discharged by reason of physical disability and assigned a reentry code of RE-3, vice under honorable conditions by reason of a condition, not a disability, interfering with his performance of duty, with a general discharge and a reentry code of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01685-07

    Original file (01685-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected to show that he was honorably discharged by reason of Secretarial Authority and assigned a reentry code (RE code) of RE-I, or in the alternative, that he was honorably discharged and assigned an RE code of RE-3G. He submits evidence of his good post service conduct and achievements, and a report...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02165-00

    Original file (02165-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    LeBlanc reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 16 August 2000 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by changing the RE-4 reenlistment code, RE-3P. (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,...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00713

    Original file (PD2010-00713.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB adjudicated the avascular necrosis condition as unfitting, rated 20% respectively, with application of DoDI 1332.39 and Veterans’ Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD), respectively. Flexion (0-125)90⁰60⁰Extension (0)0⁰#⁰Abduction (0-45)#⁰20⁰Adduction (0-45)#⁰#⁰Commentint/ext rotation normal§4.71a Rating20%20%The PEB found the avascular necrosis condition unfitting, coded 5255 (femur, impairment of), with a 20% rating. After careful consideration of your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09219-07

    Original file (09219-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 SIN Docket No: 09219-07 17 September 2008 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy ty Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL OF RECORD Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. 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 RE-4 reenlistment code. The Board, consisting of Say ena, and...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01406

    Original file (PD-2013-01406.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    SEPARATION DATE: 20071220 It did note that the VA subsequently raised the rating for the ankle to 30%, but not until the 19 January 2011 rating decision which was effective 4 November 2009 (24month after separation) and based on an examination obtained in April 2010 (28 months post-separation). In the matter of the left ankle condition, the Board unanimously recommends a disability rating of 10%, coded 5010 IAW VASRD §4.71a.There were no other conditions within the Board’s scope of review...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04605-10

    Original file (04605-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board, consisting of Ms. Countryman and Messrs. Gattis and Whalen, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 11 March 2011 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the partial corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. d. In correspondence attached as enclosure (2), the [Commandant of the Marine Corps advised the Board, in effect, that Petitioner was not entitled to disability separation or retirement, as he...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 03567-03

    Original file (03567-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected to show that he was assigned a more favorable reentry code. Petitioner’s allegations of error and regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below available evidence of record. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that in view of the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01703-09

    Original file (01703-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that her reenlistment code be changed. Reference (c), however, authorizes the issuance of an RE-3F reenlistment code for a Sailor, such as Petitioner, who was not recommended for retention due to PFA failures. That Petitioner's naval record be further corrected to show that she was recommended for reenlistment on 8 April 1996 vice not being...