Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00155
Original file (ND00-00155.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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




ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND00-00155

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 991108, 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 000727. 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: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/FRAUDULENT ENTRY INTO MILITARY SERVICE, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-134 (formerly 3630100).

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. Block 25, Separation Authority, should read: “1910-134” vice “3630100”. The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate.







PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1. My unjustifiable discharge was wrongfully chosen because I had proof of my medical problem in my medical record. Before I reported to my command, and that doctors had told me it wasn't noted in my record before and ignored my medical examination prior to boot camp.

2. My discharge did not match they gave me a General (Under Honorable Condition) but then gave me in Section 28 of my DD 214 Fraudulent Entry into military service.

3. (Upgrading my discharge) I am
not in any way, shape, or form asking for any medical benefits from the Navy, only just to have my discharge upgraded to an Honorable discharge and that if I could, get my Montgomery GI Bill, so that I can attend the Police Academy (HPD) Houston Police Dep. And proof of my exceptence into (HPD) only when my discharge is changed.

Documentation

In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:

Copy of Medical examination upon entry into military (3 pages)
Notification of Employment Eligibility for Police Department
Copy of DD Form 214 (4 copies)


PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):

         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     970805 - 970827  COG

Period of Service Under Review :

Date of Enlistment: 970828               Date of Discharge: 980528

Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 09 01 (Doesn't exclude lost time)
         Inactive: None

Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 35

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: 7

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/FRAUDULENT ENTRY INTO MILITARY SERVICE, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-134 (formerly 3630100).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

970805:  Report of Medical Examination upon entry: Applicant listed foot problems (les planus) but failed to disclose other problems, such as severe headache, dizziness or fainting spells, eye trouble, trick knees, cramps in legs, recurrent back pain, etc.

980217:  To unauthorized absence as of 0815, intentions unknown.

980224:  Returned from unauthorized (7 days).

980324:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: unauthorized absence, violation of UCMJ, Article 98: , missing movement.
         Award: Restriction and extra duty for 20 days. No indication of appeal in the record. [EXTRACTED FROM CO'S LTR OF 3 JUN 98.]

980427:  Overseas Screening: Not fit until resolution of: (1) coughing up blood since 3/98, (2) dizziness and headaches for 1 year, (3) fainting three times since age 16, (4) chronic back pain since Jr. High School, (5) knee pain and locking for 2 years, (5) orthotics since childhood - still using.

980513:  Medical Dept (USS EMORY S LAND): (#1) Pt presents to medical for pain right foot. Requests to be on stay behind has a sore spot. Right foot shows a Taylor's bunion lateral aspect.
         Assessment: Bunion
         Plan: will try mole skin, Podiatry referral.
         (#2) Complains of back pain, relates to leaning over because of feet; injury 3 weeks ago while [.......] and now stiff on awakening, when lifting hurts, sudden movements. From with pain on extension some scoliosis/tender right lumbar. No [..........].
         Assessment: Back pain - musculo skeltal.
         Plan: Limited duty. Orthotics/P.T/podiatry consult. Follow-up, pt to return as necessary.

980513:  Consultation (Orthotics): 20 year old with pes planus with prior use of orthotics. Please evaluate make a generic arch support. Diagnosis: Pes Planus.

980513:  Consultation (Physical prescription): 20 year old white male with back pain and tenderness right lateral lumbar. Please evaluate. Diagnosis: Back Pain Muscuolskelatal.

980513:  Consultation (Podiatry): 20 year old with a lateral bunion. Please evaluate. Diagnosis: Bunion.

980519:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 83: fraudulent enlistment.

         Award: Restriction for 15 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
         [EXTRACTED FROM CO'S LTR OF 3 JUN 98.]

980526:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a general (under honorable conditions by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to fraudulent entry.

980528:  Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

980603:  Commanding Officer, USS EMORY S LAND advised BUPERS that applicant's discharge was directed with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to fraudulent entry. Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim): "At Commanding Officer's Non-judicial Punishment, Seaman Recruit (Applicant) admitted to not reporting prior medical problems which would have qualified his naval enlistment. In view of the foregoing, he was separated from the naval service with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge on 28 May 1998."


PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 980528 with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to fraudulent entry (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).

In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found that the applicant only admitted to foot problems (les planus) on his Report of Medical Examination upon entry into the service. During an overseas screening, the applicant admitted to additional medical problems (coughing up blood since ’98, dizziness and headaches, fainting 3X since age 16, chronic back pain since high school, knee pain and locking and orthotics since childhood). In addition, the applicant admitted to not reporting these prior medical problems at CO’s NJP. Therefore, no relief will be granted.

In the applicant’s issue 2, the applicant states “m y discharge did not match, they gave me a General (Under Honorable Condition) but then gave me in Section 28 of my DD 214 Fraudulent Entry into military service.” The Board found that the applicant was discharged for “Fraudulent Entry into the Naval Service” which is the proper narrative. The applicant’s characterization is General (Under Honorable Conditions) which is also proper. An applicant’s entire service record is taken into account when he is discharged. The applicant, within 9 months of service, had 2 NJPs and admitted to not reporting prior medical problems when he enlisted in the Navy. The Board found this discharge characterization equitable based on this information. No relief granted based on this issue.

In the applicant’s issue 3, the applicant was briefed on the Veterans’ Educational Assistance Act of 1984 (G.I. BILL). Specifically, he was briefed that an Honorable discharge after completion of 36 months on active duty would be required for entitlement to benefits under the G.I. BILL. No relief granted.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 12 Dec 97 until Present, Article 1910-134 (previously 3630100), Separation by Reason of Defective Enlistments and Inductions – Fraudulent Entry Into the Naval Service.

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 view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at " afls14.jag.af.mil ".

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
                  720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
                  Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5023      





Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00592

    Original file (PD2009-00592.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The CI was referred to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), determined unfit for the Sinus Tarsi Syndrome condition, and separated at 10% disability using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Naval and Department of Defense regulations. The CI was separated on 20020814 for Sinus Tarsi Syndrome with chronic bilateral foot and ankle pain rated analogously as code 5279, Metatarsalgia, anterior, (Morton’s Disease), unilateral or bilateral, which assigns...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-00346

    Original file (PD-2012-00346.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The MEB determined the “mechanical thoracic spine pain secondary to mild thoracic scoliosis and arthritis/degenerative changes of the thoracic spine” and “plantar fasciitis, left foot” to be medically unacceptable and referred these conditions to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). The examiner noted that the spine was normal. RECOMMENDATION: The Board recommends that the CI’s prior determination be modified as follows, effective as of the date of his prior medical separation: VASRD CODE...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02003

    Original file (PD-2013-02003.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is limited to those conditions determined by the PEB to be unfitting for continued military service and when specifically requested by the CI, those conditions identified by the PEB, but determined to be not unfitting. The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01675

    Original file (PD2012 01675.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is limited to those conditions determined by the PEB to be unfitting for continued military service and those conditions identified but not determined to be unfitting by the PEB, when specifically requested by the CI. Back pain, along with foot pain, was mentioned in a sick call note in 1999, although the entry elaborated only the foot complaint. An individual with a complaint of chronic low back pain, a normal objective examination, and normal objective testing is normally not referred...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01323

    Original file (PD2012 01323.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The left foot injury condition, characterized as “diastasis of the first and second metatarsal base joint and medial and central cuneiform joint diathesis” was forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501 as medically unacceptable.No other conditions were submitted by the MEB.The PEBadjudicated the condition as left foot injury (moderate) as unfitting, rated 10%. At the MEB exam, on 24 April 2003, 2 months prior to separation, the CI reported 3 years of pain in the left...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00776

    Original file (PD2010-00776.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the matter of the bilateral cataracts, trigeminal neuralgia, bilateral knee pain, pes planus, tinnitus or any other medical conditions eligible for Board consideration; the Board unanimously agrees that it cannot recommend any findings of unfit for additional rating at separation. RECOMMENDATION : The Board recommends that the CI’s prior determination be modified as follows, effective as of the date of his prior medical separation: Subj: PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW (PDBR)...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02225

    Original file (PD-2013-02225.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. RATING COMPARISON : IPEB – Dated 20050404VA* -(~7 Months Post-Separation) ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Morton’s Neuroma, Left Foot…527910%…Morton’s Neuroma, Left Foot5276-527910%20051219Other x 0 (Not In...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01495

    Original file (PD2012 01495.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The CI then returned with left foot pain and was diagnosed by bone scan in June 2001 to have another metatarsal stress fracture; she was again treated. The VA rated the right foot pain and the left foot pain separately, each as 5299-5284 (analogous to other foot injury) at 10% (moderate), combined with bilateral factor to 20%. SUBJECT: Department of Defense Physical Disability Board of Review Recommendation for AR20130009110 (PD201201495)I have reviewed the enclosed Department of Defense...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00792

    Original file (PD2011-00792.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board finally makes note that the rating decision for PTSD, which was not in the DES file, nor was considered in the original VA rating decision, was derived from VA evaluations performed more than 12 months after separation, and was rated effective 29 months after separation. The Board does not have the authority under DoDI 6040.44 to render fitness or rating recommendations for any conditions not considered by the DES. RECOMMENDATION : The Board, therefore, recommends that there be...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01685

    Original file (PD-2013-01685.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    When seen in primary care a week later, he had a normal gait, but continued to report pain. He again reported persistent pain when seen in PT on 4 May 2004, but had a normal posture, gait, and ankle range-of-motion (ROM). I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board.