Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00963
Original file (ND99-00963.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AR, USN
Docket No. ND99-00963

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990709, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The applicant designated the Disabled American Veterans Organization as her representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000427. 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 character of the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: UNCHARACTERIZED/ FAILED MEDICAL/PHYSICAL PROCUREMENT STANDARDS, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-130 (formerly 3620280).

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

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 1. I should have gotten a medical discharge because I was not medically qualified to continue service.

2. I tried to serve and wanted to continue service.

3. I have been a good citizen since discharge.

4. I was injured during Boot Camp, after serving 4 months of active duty.

Submitted by DAV:
5. Petition for Relief (PFR) as follows; the FSM enter active service on 3-10-98, after being presumed fit in accordance with SECNAVINST 1001(h)..

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
DAV's comments/recommendation ltr of Apr 19, 2000
Copy of USN DD Form 214 (98Mar10 - 98AUG25) (2 copies)
Copy of USA DD Form 214 (950411 - 950606)
Medical Service Record Entries (4 pages)
Separation Authority ltr (CO, RTC GLakes) dtd Aug 20 1998
Applicant's Notification Procedure Letter dtd 19 Aug 98

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USA                        950411 - 950606  UNCHARACTERIZED
                                                                        (Failed Procurement Stds)
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     980227 - 980309  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 980310               Date of Discharge: 980825

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 05 16
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 22                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 47

 Highest Rate: AR

 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/FAILED MEDICAL/PHYSICAL PROCUREMENT STANDARDS, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-130 (formerly 3620280).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

980124:  Entrance Physical Exam: Applicant stated failed PT test (pulled hamstring) in US Army and discharged with Uncharacterized service on 950606.

980705:  NAVHOSP, BrMedClinic GLakes, IL: Pt was evaluated for Osgood's Disease with plain Xray's. She doesn't have that disease. Her exams have not revealed any significant rationale that after the rest she has received would preclude her from returning to full duty. Her case was reviewed with RTC Legal who, concurs with her return to training. Knee pain, fit for full duty, follow up, as necessary.

980713:  NAVHOSP GLakes, IL: 23 year old female complains of bilateral alterior knee pain while running. Female with lower extremities myalgia. Pt appears to be over exaggerating myalgia/knee pain.
         Assessment: Lower extremities myalgia, mild bilateral patella tender.
         Plan: 1 - Napropen 500mg, 2 - quals/hamstring stretching, exercises given, 3 - Pt fit for full duty, 4 - follow-up, return as necessary.

980724:  Branch Medical Clinic, RTC, GLakes, IL: Perostitis/Stress Fracture Follow-up: On Napropen. Bone scan on 17 July. Muscle strain. Return full duty. Return to clinic as necessary. Admin sep pending.

980806:  Branch Medical Clinic, RTC, GLakes, IL: Perostitis/Stress Fracture Follow-up: Constant pain in knees & muscles. Placed on light duty for 7 days. P.T. - upper body and fastrack. Return to clinic as necessary.
980817:  Branch Medical Clinic, RTC, GLakes, IL: ELMS for EPTE condition.
 Diagnosis: Patella Femoral Syndrome (knee pain). Condition is not correctable to meet Navy standards. Xray and bone scan performed. Pt did not have waiver to come into service with condition. Pt was not hospitalized, pt instructed to follow-up with known civilian provider and given instructed as to her diagnosis and suggested treatment.

 980819:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by knee pain.
980819:  Applicant advised of her 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.

980820:  CO, RTC, GLAKES, IL 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 knee pain.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 980825 with an uncharacterized (entry level separation) for defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by knee pain (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 was proper and equitable (C and D).

 Responding to the applicant’s first, fourth, and fifth issue, given the applicant’s short time of service, an entry-level separation was an appropriate characterization. Concerning the applicant’s contention that she deserved a medical board, the applicant submitted no evidence that the medical personnel made a mistake concerning her diagnosis or their subsequent recommendations. Relief is not warranted.

The Board appreciates the applicant’s statements concerning her desire to serve and her post-service conduct, however these issues are not germane to the applicant’s discharge characterization. Relief denied.


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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-00066

    Original file (ND99-00066.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 971217: Branch Medical Clinic, Great Lakes evaluation (podiatry): Diagnosis - Pes Planus with symptoms, entry level medical separation for EPTE condition. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00016

    Original file (ND01-00016.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant should consult a recruiter to determine requirements for reenlistment. 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. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00204

    Original file (ND01-00204.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Notification Letter to Applicant dtd Oct 6, 1999 Recruit Mental Health Substance Use Evaluation dtd Sep 23, 1999 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: 990824 Date of Discharge: 991013 Length of Service (years, months,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00670

    Original file (ND00-00670.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION For the applicant’s service to be characterized as Honorable he must have served over 180 days or have such meritorious service that would warrant an honorable discharge. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint.

  • 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...