Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00651
Original file (ND00-00651.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AR, USN
Docket No. ND00-00651

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 000426, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions and the reenlistment code be modified to permit re-entry. 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 001102. 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 (verbatim)

 1. The Re-enlistment Code of RE-4, Uncharacterized Discharge on my DD Form 214 is improper because of the fact that the doctor at the MEPS in El Paso, TX who performed the physical on February of 1995, gave the all clear. He did notice my pinky on my right hand, and still allowed me be continue with my enlistment in the U.S. Navy.

2. I have now have had the pin surgically removed at my own expense. It was removed on 1999 August 13,and I have all the medical documents both from MEPS and my civilian doctors. I again passed the physical I November of 1999, but due to new instruction in the Command Naval Recruiting Center Instruction, no Re-Enlistment Codes of RE-4 are eligible to Re-enlist. This is the reason I am requesting that the Review Board change my RE code to reflect a General Discharge under Honorable Conditions, so that I may Re-enlist in the U.S. Navy.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Doctor P_ M. G_ M_'s, Plastic Surgeon, Translated Report dtd Oct 22, 1999
Applicant's Physical Exam for Re-entry dtd 12 Nov 99 (7 pages)
Copy of DD Form 214 (2 copies)
Character Reference ltr from R_ N_ dtd 11-23-99
Character Reference ltr from A_ P. M_ dtd 11/24/99
Character Reference ltr from J_ E. M_ dtd 11-30-99
Character Reference ltr from J_ T. M_, BM2, USN, DTD Feb 02, 2000
Applicant's handwritten Statement as to what happened dtd 2/1/00
Copy of Unsigned/Undated letter from CO, NRD, San Antonio to CNRC requesting eligibility waiver

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     950206 - 950214  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 950215               Date of Discharge: 950317

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 01 03
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 33

 Highest Rate: AR

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMA                  Behavior: NMA             OTA: NMA

 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 :

950206:  Enlistment Physical Exam, El Paso MEPS noted the Minimal contraction right little finger, doesn't appear to interfere with function of right hand.
         Applicant found fit to enter the Navy.
950307:  Naval Hospital, Branch Medical Clinic, Great Lakes, IL/ELMS Note: 19 year old male complains of pain in right hand since 1 week prior to coming to boot camp. Had rock fall on hand 5 years ago and fracture. "Not fixed correctly" at Red Cross in Mexico.
         Diagnosis: Malunited fracture, EPTE.
950310:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with an Entry Level Separation (Uncharacterized) by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by Malunited Fracture.

950310:  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.

950314:  CO, RTC, Great Lakes, IL, directed the applicant's discharge with an Entry Level Separation (Uncharacterized) by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment into the naval service as evidenced by malunited fracture.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 950317 with an Entry Level Separation (uncharacterized) by reason of defective enlistment due to Failed 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).

 In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found that although the applicant was allowed to enter the Navy despite a medical problem with his right little finger, it later did interfere with his job. At RTC, the applicant had a problem with his hand and was diagnosed with manumitted fracture, existing prior to entry (EPTE). The Board found that the applicant was properly discharged due to failed medical/physical procurement standards based on documented medical problems with his right hand.

In the applicant’s issue 2, 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. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C, Change 9, effective 22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96, Article 3620280, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL 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 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01435

    Original file (ND03-01435.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01435 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20030909, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :010730: Entry Level...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00468

    Original file (ND04-00468.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-AR, USN Docket No. ND04-00468 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20040128, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19970407 with a uncharacterized service for defective enlistment and induction due to failing...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00086

    Original file (ND02-00086.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-AR, USN Docket No. The applicant requested a documentary record 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 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Directive.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01307

    Original file (ND03-01307.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Applicant's service record did not contain any unusual circumstances during her less than one month in the military to warrant a change of discharge to "honorable." Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Naval Service or any other branch...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00430

    Original file (ND02-00430.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Since returning home, with proper treatment, my skin has cleared up. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 010507 with an uncharacterized service for defective enlistment and induction due to failed medical/physical procurement standards (A). The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant's discharge, will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00371

    Original file (ND04-00371.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-AR, USN Docket No. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19980312 with uncharacterized service for defective enlistment and induction due to failed medical/physical procurement standards (A). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1997_Navy | ND97-01342

    Original file (ND97-01342.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND97-01342 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 970904, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and reason for discharge be changed to “HONORABLE DISCHARGE WITH FULL BENEFITS”. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A, Change 9, effective 22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96), Article 3620280,SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF DEFECTIVE ENLISTMENT AND INDUCTIONS – ERRONEOUS ENLISTMENT, states:1. A review...

  • 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 | ND01-00452

    Original file (ND01-00452.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: UNCHARACTERIZED (ENTRY LEVEL SEPARATION)/FAILED MEDICAL/PHYSICAL PROCUREMENT STANDARDS, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-130 (formerly Article 3620280). PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 991222 with an uncharacterized service for defective enlistment and induction due to failed medical/physical procurement standards (A). After a thorough review of the records, facts, and circumstances...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00695

    Original file (ND03-00695.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-FA, USN Docket No. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040212. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case,...