Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00066
Original file (ND99-00066.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SR, USNR
Docket No. ND99-00066

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 981020, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reenlistment code be changed to RE-3. The applicant requested 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 990927. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service. The Board’s vote was unanimous that the charater of the discharge shall not change. The discharge and reason for discharge shall remain: UNCHARACTERIZED (ENTRY LEVEL SEPARATION)/ERRONEOUS ENTRY (OTHER), authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-130 (formerly Article 3620280).

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. Block 25, Separation Authority, should read: “Article 1910-130” vice “Article 3620280”. The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate.






PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

 1. I was accepted in the United States Navy September 16, 1997 as Navy Reserves into the D.E.P.S. Program at Kalispell, Montana. Then, I was assigned active duty, going to R.T.C. on November 13, 1997. I went through five weeks of training when I tripped on a piece of sidewalk and sprained my ankle. I was sent over to Medical to have it checked out. At Medical I was seen by Lieutenant P_, a Podiatrist. He recommended me for discharge because of my ankle pain. So Lieutenant P_ had me re-assigned for Separations. I was at Separations for seven days. I left base on December 23, 1997, and arrived home in Montana, by bus, on December 25, 1997. When I got home, I looked at my discharge papers and saw that Lieutenant P_ had put on my discharge papers that I had ankle pain caused by flat feet. I felt that what he had written was a lie. I felt that I had only sprained my ankle. Two weeks after I arrived home my ankle had healed. I went to a private Podiatrist, a Dr. B_. He examined my feet and found that Lieutenant P_ had lied on my discharge papers. Please look through all of the information I am sending to you. I would really like to have that lie changed to the truth.

2. Also, I want to go back into the Navy with all of my heart. I really enjoyed R.T.C., and I would like to have the R.E. code on my discharge papers changed to an R.E.-3 so that I may go back in Please consider me for re-enlistment into the U.S. Navy by changing the R.E. code. Thankyou for taking time out to review all the documents I have sent you. Thankyou for your time and patience.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214 (2 copies)
Character Reference letter from L_ W. C_ dated Feb 17, 1998
Character Reference letter from L_ C. N_ dated 20 Feb 1998
Character Reference letter from V_ J_ undated
Applicant's Medical Initial Progress Note dated 29 Jan 98
Character Reference letter from A_ R. W_ dated Feb 21, 1998
Applicant's Resume

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 970916               Date of Discharge: 971223

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 01 12
         Inactive: 00 01 25

 Age at Entry: 23                          Years Contracted: 8

 Education Level: 13                        AFQT: 45

 Highest Rate: SR

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMF                  Behavior:        NMF               OTA: NMF

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

UNCHARACTERIZED (ENTRY LEVEL SEPARATION)/ERRONEOUS ENTRY (OTHER), authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-130 (formerly Article 3620280).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

971112:  Commenced 36 months of active duty under the Seaman Apprenticeship
                  Program.
971125:  Branch Medical Clinic, Great Lakes: Pt complains of left posterior calf due to marching last night - tearful.
         Assessment: Calf/distal ham strain.
         Plan: (1) Naproxen 500 mg ...., (2) ice, (3) self-stretching, (4) follow up, pt returns as necessary, (5) crutches.

971126:  Branch Medical Clinic, Great Lakes: Pt returns states she is having a hard time keeping up with her division.
         Assessment: Calf/ham strain
         Plan: (1) SIQ, (2) follow up Friday, (3) continue rest of plan as outlined on 25 Nov 94, (4) pt educated, (5) proper crutch walking reviewed.

971205:  Branch Medical Clinic, Great Lakes: Pt states she is "pain-free", denies symptoms of previous diagnosis of left calf & distal ham strain.
         Assessment: Resolved.
         Plan: Fit for full duty.

971216:  Branch Medical Clinic, Great Lakes: 23 year old female with chief complaint of falling while marching and twisted her left ankle.
         Assessment: Ankle sprain, pitted keratolysis
         Plan: (1) light limited duty times 6 days then fit for full duty, (2) ace wrap issued, (3) pt educated on diagnosis, (4) follow up if necessary.

971217:  Branch Medical Clinic, Great Lakes: Pt returned to clinic with compliant of increased pain in her left ankle even after SIQ. She seems very depressed about situation. She walks with severe limp and states she wants to be placed in RCM because she can't keep up with her Division.
         Assessment - Ankle pain most likely attributed to pes planus
         Plan: (1) Entry Level Medical Separations for condition of flat feet and (2) Return to clinic if increased pain.

971217:  Branch Medical Clinic, Great Lakes evaluation (podiatry): Diagnosis - Pes Planus with symptoms, entry level medical separation for EPTE condition. Pt instructed to follow-up with known civilian provided if no improvement.
971218:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by pes planus with symptoms.
971218:  Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

971219:  CO, RTC Great Lakes directed the applicant's discharge with an entry level separation (uncharacterized) by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by pes planus with symptoms.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 971223 with an entry level separation (uncharacterized) by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment (A). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge and the reason for discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).

In response to the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found that the applicant was properly diagnosed by two separate qualified medical officers to have pes planus (prior to enlistment during medical screening and at Recruit Training by a podiatrist). Thus, the Board finds that the Reason for Discharge reflects the applicant's status at the time of her discharge, and was proper and equitable at the time of issuance. “Erroneous enlistment” is an accurate narrative description of the reason for the applicant's discharge. The contention that the pes planus no longer exists or has been overcome does not provide a legitimate basis to alter history.

In addition, a characterization of service as “uncharacterized” was found by the Board to be proper. The applicant served for one month and 12 days. There were no observed evaluations from which to characterize an honorable or other than honorable enlistment. A characterization of “uncharacterized” is neither favorable nor unfavorable.

In the applicant’s second issue, the Board has no authority to change re-enlistment codes or make recommendations to permit re-entry into the Naval Service or any other of the Armed Forces. Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, a bar to re-enlistment. A request for waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment.

 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 12 Dec 97 until PRESENT, Article 1910-130 (formerly 3620280), Separation by Reason of Defective Enlistments and Inductions - Erroneous Enlistment.

B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

C. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

D. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.

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 obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to:
                  DA Military Review Boards Agency
                  Management Information and Support Directorate
                  Armed Forces Reading Room
                  Washington, D.C. 20310-1809

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:

                  Naval Council of Personnel Boards
                  Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board
                  Washington Navy Yard
                  720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
                  Washington, D.C. 20374-5023     

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00106

    Original file (ND01-00106.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-SN, USN Docket No. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. I never had problems with my knee before training.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00442

    Original file (ND01-00442.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00442 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010223, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable. Documentation Only the applicant's service and medical records were reviewed, as the applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider. Assessment: Headaches Plan: Continue Tylenol as before, Neuro consult, Pt educated.980819: Medical evaluation (Branch Medical Clinic, Great Lakes): Entry...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00749

    Original file (ND02-00749.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 010829 with an uncharacterized service (entry level separation) for defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment (A). 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 (C and D).Issue 1: An Entry Level Separation (ELS) is not a dishonorable...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600588

    Original file (ND0600588.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Closing, the only request I make of the board is to allow me a second chance to serve my country, and to prove that I am capable, and can rise up and surpass the challenges I would be presented serving in the United States Armed Forces.” Documentation In addition to the service and medical records, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 1 and 4)Letter from E_ J. W_, MD, B_ Bone and Joint Clinic, dtd July 25, 2005 (2...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01018

    Original file (ND99-01018.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    When I joined the United States Navy, I was planning to remain in that branch as my career. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 950202 with an uncharacterized (entry level separation) by reason of erroneous enlistment due to failure of medical/physical procurement standards (A). You may obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to: DA Military Review Boards Agency Management Information and Support...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00479

    Original file (ND03-00479.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Entry Level Medical Separation – Lateral Meniscal Tear.001121: USS TRANQUILLITY Medical Clinic, Naval Hospital, Great Lakes, IL: Entry Level Medical Separation due to diagnosis Knee Arthralgia, Chronic. 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 (C and D).By regulation, members discharged within the first 180 days of enlistment are given characterization of service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00388

    Original file (ND02-00388.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Since the date of his discharge, Fireman (Applicant) has attempted to obtain copies of his medical records from the Navy and the Great Lakes Training Center in order to present with this Petition. I respectfully submit that this sailor should not suffer the lifelong consequences and stigma of a bar to reenlistment due to being overly medicated by non-physician personnel within the Navy who failed to check the drug interaction consequences of the significant doses of antihistamines,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00569

    Original file (ND01-00569.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00569 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010327, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. My discharge was an uncharacterized Entry Level Separation and would like my level raised to an RE-1, so that I may re-enlist into the United States Navy.I was born with Optical Neuropathy, which is optic nerve damage. The Board reviewed the applicant’s record and found the Uncharacterized (Entry Level Separation)...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00431

    Original file (ND01-00431.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Entry level medical separation for an EPTE condition. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 001103 with an uncharacterized (entry level separation) by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by chronic tension type headaches (failed medical/physical procurement standards) (A). Relief is not warranted.The applicant’ s second issue states: “I believe my discharge should be...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01042

    Original file (ND00-01042.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. I was notified in July that my newborn son was having medical problems, I requested to call home and was granted permission. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 990802 with an entry level separation (uncharacterized) for defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment - alcohol abuse(A).