Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00810
Original file (MD02-00810.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-PVT, USMC
Docket No. MD02-00810

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 020515, 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 030214. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the NDRB discerned there was an inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service. The Board’s vote was unanimous that the characterization of the discharge shall change to HONORABLE and the narrative reason shall remain CONDITION NOT A PHYSICAL OR MENTAL DISABILITY, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6203.2.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

 Prior to the documentary discharge review, the Applicant introduced no issues, as block 8 on the DD Form 293 is blank.

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Copies of DD Form 214 (2)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USMC              None
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                991104 - 000724  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 000725               Date of Discharge: 010309

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 07 15
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 55

 Highest Rank: PVT

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 4.2 (2)              Conduct: 4.2 (2)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: Rifle Sharpshooter Badge

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/ CONDITION NOT A PHYSICAL OR MENTAL DISABILITY, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6203.2.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

001120:  Sports Medicine and Reconditioning Therapy (S.M.A.R.T.) Center, Camp Pendleton: New Appointment: 5 days ago, on 4 mile hike, tripped and hit Left Knee. Diagnosis: Patella Tender, No Contusion. Treatment: Ice/Heat, Strengthening/Power Exercise, Flexibility. Referral: Stretching Class (M,W,F), placed on light duty for 2 days.

001127:  S.M.A.R.T. Center: Follow up: Diagnosis: Patella Contusion/ Patella Femoral Syndrome. Light Duty for 7 days.

001204:  S.M.A.R.T. Center: Follow up: 19-year-old Marine fell 3 weeks ago onto left knee hit rock. Still left knee pain but less frequent, still with pain on prolonged sitting with knee in flexed position. Diagnosis: bony contusion of patella vs. chondral defect vs. Patella-Femoral Syndrome, improving on PT.

001211:  S.M.A.R.T. Center: Follow up: Diagnosis: Contusion Left Knee. Light Duty for 7 days.

001215:  S.M.A.R.T. Center: Follow up: Knee Contusion. Fit for full duty.

001222:  S.M.A.R.T. Center: Follow up: Diagnosis: Patella-Femoral Syndrome. Treatment: Ice, E-stim Acute Pain, Strengthening/Power Exercises, Flexibility, NSAID'S (Motrin), Drop to SAC.

001229:  S.M.A.R.T. Center: Follow up: Diagnosis: Patella-Femoral Syndrome. Treatment: NSAID'S (Motrin, Naprosyn, Indocin), Quads Strengthening/Power Exercise, placed on light duty for 7 days.

010104:  S.M.A.R.T. Center: Follow up: Diagnosis: Patella-Femoral Syndrome. Treatment: Ice/Heat, ROM Exercise, Strengthening/Power Exercise, Flexibility. Referral: Stretching Class (M,W,F), placed on light duty for 14 days.

010118:  S.M.A.R.T. Center: Follow up: Diagnosis: Patella-Femoral Syndrome. Fit for full duty.

010125:  S.M.A.R.T. Center: Applicant was on full duty for 7 days, Patella Femoral Syndrome symptoms continued to worsen, was lifting desk, when he couldn't hold it any longer and felt weakness, heard a pop and grinding. Diagnosis: Patella-Femoral Syndrome. Fit for full duty.

010206:  S.M.A.R.T. Center: Follow up: Diagnosis: Patella-Femoral Syndrome, recommended for Administrative Separation.

010206:  Treatment failure.

010207:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. Administrative Remarks (6105) comments: "You have been diagnosed with PFPS of Right & Left Knee that hinders your ability to train." Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

010215:         Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a characterization of general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government for a physical condition not a disability.
010215:  Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27(b), elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

010220:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge with a characterization of general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government for a condition no a physical or mental disability. CO comments: "The factual basis for this recommendation was due to numerous medical complaints regarding his knee, reevaluated by medical authorities, they concluded that PVT D_ had patella-femoral pain syndrome in right and left knee."

000305:  GCMCA (Commanding General, Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton) directed the Applicant's discharge with a characterization of general (under honorable conditions) by reason of physical condition not a disability.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 010309 with a characterization of general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government due to condition not a physical or mental disability (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 but not equitable with respect to the characterization (C and D).

The Applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the NDRB. Subsequently, the Board reviewed the Applicant's service and medical records to determine the propriety and equity of the separation process. While the Applicant's physical condition did warrant administrative processing for discharge, and no other narrative reason more clearly describes the circumstances surrounding the Applicant's discharge, the Board found that his performance and conduct were above the standard required for an honorable discharge. There were no nonjudicial proceedings, detrimental page 11 entries, or other derogatory information that would have warranted a characteri-zation less favorable than honorable. Thus, relief with respect to characterization is granted.

 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E, effective 18 Aug 95), paragraph 6203, CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT
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

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00794

    Original file (MD02-00794.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-00794 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020515, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Dear Chairperson:After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Naval Discharge Review Board 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00180

    Original file (MD03-00180.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I was told that in order to have anything done about my knees, I would need to upgrade my discharge.” 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: USMCR (J) 000823 - 010521 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 010522 Date of Discharge: 011129 Length of...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600403

    Original file (MD0600403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, falls well below that required for an honorable characterization of service. Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 00704

    Original file (PD 2012 00704.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Left Knee Condition . The joint motion documented in examinations did not attain a minimum rating under VASRD diagnostic code5260 (limitation of flexion) or 5261 (limitation of extension). Board members agreed that there was sufficient evidence of pain with use prior to separation, as well objective examination and imaging findings, to support a 10% rating considering functional loss and painful motion (§4.40, §4.59); however, no route to a higher rating was found.After due deliberation,...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00027

    Original file (PD2009-00027.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB adjudicated only the right knee condition as unfitting and the CI was medically separated with a disability rating of 0%. Right Knee Condition . Other Conditions .

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501264

    Original file (MD0501264.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Recommendation: Administrative separation for a chronic medical condition, not a disability. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper (B); however, the characterization of discharge was inequitable (C).The Applicant implies that her characterization of...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00570

    Original file (MD02-00570.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-00570 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020311, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Request that this injustice be corrected by upgrading (Applicant) discharge from General Discharge (under Honorable Conditions) to an Honorable Discharge (under Honorable Conditions). Light duty for 2 days.991122: Branch Medical Clinic: A: Resolving left ankle sprain.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-01921

    Original file (PD-2012-01921.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The MEB also identified and forwarded history of cellulitis, left knee, chronic bilateral hip pain secondary to bilateral iliotibial band friction syndrome, chronic mechanical low back pain, mild (less than a centimeter) left shorter than right limb length discrepancy, and mild bilateral pes planus conditions.The PEBadjudicated “left patellofemoral pain with secondary chronic left knee pain” as unfitting, rated 10%, with likely application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD 2014 02245

    Original file (PD 2014 02245.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The left knee condition, characterized as “left knee pain with chondromalacia patella” by the MEB, was forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AFI 48-123. The Board directs attention to its rating recommendationbased on the above evidence.Although the final PEB diagnosis was persistent knee pain “due to Patellofemoral Syndrome” and the MEB diagnosis was due to “chondromalacia patella,” the NARSUM diagnosis was due to “subluxation.” Radiographs indicated degenerative changes...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004103221C070208

    Original file (2004103221C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Rating Decision noted that a 40 percent rating (for the applicant's hip condition) was granted because the physical examination showed he could flex his hip only 10 degrees. It is also noted that the Army rated the applicant's knee condition in May 1994 at 10 percent whereas the VA, even after his numerous complaints of knee problems after the PEB, initially awarded a zero percent rating for his knee condition. There is no evidence that the applicant's ankle condition or injury to his...