Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00086
Original file (ND02-00086.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AR, USN
Docket No. ND02-00086

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 011016, requested that his separation code be changed so that he can continue his naval service. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20 June 2002. 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 (ENTRY LEVEL SEPARATION)/FAILED MEDICAL/PHYSICAL PROCUREMENT STANDARDS, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-130 (formerly Article 3620280).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1. To whom it may concern, I was separated from the U.S. Navy due to evidence of Asthma. My hometown doctor says there isn't evidence of Asthma, only a bronchial spasm, which was treated and cleared. The letter my doctor (Dr. W_ H_) sent to me, was sent to my hometown recruiter (Chief E_). Please upgrade my separation code and bring me back to serve my country. Please accept this application for my re-enlistment. Thank you. Please let my journey re-begin.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
DD Form 149
Letter from doctor dated July 11, 2001

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     980416 - 980812  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 980813               Date of Discharge: 980915

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 01 03
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 69

 Highest Rate: AR

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMA                  Behavior: NMA             OTA: NMA

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

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :
980901:  Medical Record: Applicant has clinical and objective evidence of asthma.

980903:  Recruit Medical Eval: Applicant diagnosis with asthma.
980909:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to failed the medical/physical procurement standards.
980909:  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.

980910:  Commanding officer directed discharge with an uncharacterized service by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to failed medical/physical procurement standards.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 980915 with an uncharacterized service for defective enlistment and induction 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).

 Issue 1. The applicant states that his hometown doctor said he did not have evidence of asthma. The applicant was diagnosed by competent medical authority to have had asthma, while serving in the U.S. Navy. The Board cannot change the reason for discharge from a medical reason to a non-medical reason and therefore will not dispute the findings made by competent medical authority. The Applicant's also requested to re-enlist and continue to serve the United States. The NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reentry into the naval service or any other branch of the Armed Forces. The NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy or Marine Corps. The reenlistment policy is promulgated by the Chief of Naval Personnel. A request for a waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter. Relief, on this basis is therefore, 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 view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at " afls10.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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00554

    Original file (ND01-00554.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). Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Rx from doctor dated February 22, 2001 (original and copy) Copy of DD Form 214 (2 copies) Seven pages from applicant's service record PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND...

  • 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 | 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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-01069

    Original file (ND03-01069.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By regulation, members discharged within the first 180 days of enlistment are given a service characterization of "Uncharacterized" unless there were unusual circumstances regarding performance or conduct, which would merit an "honorable" characterization. The Applicant was notified of the intended recommendation for discharge with an uncharacterized service by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by failure to disclose a pre-existing...

  • 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 | 2000_Navy | ND00-00866

    Original file (ND00-00866.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Last I/P discharge 1/99. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 000119 with an Uncharacterized service for defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment (A). He served 23 days in the U.S. Navy and was discharged with an uncharacterized, entry level separation for erroneous entry.

  • 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,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00920

    Original file (ND03-00920.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. I was 19 years old, perhaps I was not fully prepared for the life decision I had made for myself at that time that time. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 1 and 4) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00708

    Original file (ND04-00708.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The FSM served on active service from November 4, 2002 to December 2, 2002 at which time he was discharged due to Failed medical / physical procurement standards. Since his discharge the FSM has been seen by medical specialist that have determined that the right ear pain was caused by Temporomandibular joint disorder and is considered temporary and un-related to the hearing loss. As the representative, we ask that consideration be given to equitable relief, as this is a matter that...