Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01018
Original file (ND99-01018.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND99-01018

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990727, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 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 000411. 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 3620280.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 1. In November 1994, while in boot camp at Great Lakes, Illinois, I hurt my ankle which led to my discharge on February 2, 1995. At that time, I was told that I would received a medical discharge because of my condition. Eventually, my discharge was listed as "Uncharacterized".

2, Since June 1995, I have attended Nicholls State University in Thibodaux, Louisiana. This past April, officials in the school's financial aid department have brought to my attention that because of my uncharacterized discharge; I will lose my Pell Grant. Without this grant, I will not be able to further my education.

3. When I joined the United States Navy, I was planning to remain in that branch as my career. Unfortunately, I was not able to pursue that career path. As a female, education is a real necessity in the real world, because unlike in the military, sex plays a vital role in the workplace.

4. In conclusion, I am not making this request as a form of begging the government of the United States for money or any other type of assistance, but only to receive the "Honorable" classification so I will be able to once again receive my Pell Grant.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     941129 - 941129  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 941130               Date of Discharge: 950202

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 02 03
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 18                        AFQT: 31

 Highest Rate: SR

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMF                  Behavior: NMF             OTA: NMF

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

 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 3620280.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

941013:  RTC Branch Clinic, NAVHOSP GLakes, IL: Pt complains of injury to ankle while marching. Pt states she twisted ankle outward. No fracture noted.
         Plan: Crutches with education on use, ace wrap, motrin, light limited duty for 1 day. Follow-up muscle-skeletal in AM.

950123:  RTC Branch Clinic, GLakes, IL: Diagnosis - Ankle instability, EPTE.
         This Seaman Recruit has a history of repeated ankle sprains, resulting in an unstable ankle. She has failed physical therapy at boot camp and should seek surgical evaluation upon discharge.
950125:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under Entry Level Separation by reason of erroneous enlistment as evidenced by Right Ankle Instability.
950125:  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.

950130:  RTC GLakes, IL directed the applicant's discharge under Entry Leval Separation by reason of defective enlistment and induction into naval service due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by right ankle instability.

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). 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).

It is the Board’s regret that the applicant’s service did not warrant an Honorable discharge based primarily on the amount of time the applicant served ( approximately two months). The applicant was in an entry level status and the Uncharacterized discharge was appropriate. Relief is denied.

Concerning the applicant’s Pell grant, it is not the Board’s place to upgrade a discharge so that the applicant can attend college.
 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C, Change 9, effective 22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96, Article 3620280, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONEL BY REASON OF DEFECTIVE ENLISTMENT 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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-00963

    Original file (ND99-00963.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • 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 | ND01-00016

    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 | 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-01181

    Original file (ND01-01181.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-01181 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010917, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, we continue to support the contentions as set forth by the applicant, in his request that he be given the...

  • 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 | 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 | 2002_Navy | ND02-01129

    Original file (ND02-01129.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):UNCHARACTERIZED (ENTRY LEVEL SEPARATION)/ERRONEOUS ENTRY (OTHER), authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620280. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 971205 with an entry level separation (uncharacterized) for defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment (A). In addition, to upgrade the Applicant’s discharge to Honorable solely for...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00386

    Original file (ND00-00386.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00386 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000203, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions and remove the reason for the discharge. Characterization of service as General is not warranted as the applicant’s active service was only 16 days. The applicant was properly processed for discharge as erroneous enlistment, however, an administrative error on the DD214 states “personality...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00237

    Original file (ND00-00237.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 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: 940416 Date of Discharge: 940712 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 00 00 20 Inactive: 00 02 07 PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT...