Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00430
Original file (ND02-00430.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND02-00430

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 020228, 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 list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 021029. 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, as submitted

1. Subject: Change of discharge status in U. S. Navy

My name is ( Applicant ). I have actively and whole heartily participated in the best experience of my life...seven weeks of basic training in the U. S. Navy. As a twenty-year-old young man, who after careful consideration chose the U. S. Navy for a career, I was unfortunately discharged for a medical reason.

Eczema is the reason for my medical discharge. Eczema is a skin irritation that displays itself on me occasionally through rashes on my hands, arms, and back of my legs. With the knowledge of proper care for skin eczema for the most part is under control. (The exception may be the change of seasons, as with most allergies, or excessive dry skin that is then treated by medicine prescribed by my dermatologist.) I take care to use over-the-counter moisturizers to keep moisture in my dry skin, such as *Vasoline or body lotion. When I apply the moisturizers to my skin daily, particularly following a shower my skin remains clear.

When I arrived at Great Lakes, Illinois for Recruit Training, the necessary over-the-counter moisturizers were taken away, even after I explained why I needed them. Soon I began to break out in rashes due to extremely dry skin conditions. Later, after seeing a Navy doctor, my rashes had gotten worse and I needed a more potent treatment than the over-the-counter moisturizers that typically work. I needed a prescription cream (Temorate 0.05) to treat what had inflamed to Atopic Dermatitis, which disqualified me from the military. I was sent home with an E.L.S. (Enlistment Level Separation), due to Eczema.

Since returning home, with proper treatment, my skin has cleared up. Eczema is not a very serious condition nor is it contagious. I am a strong healthy young man who is eager to serve my country.

Sir, this is where I need your assistance. In order to be reinstated into the Navy, I need my discharge changed to R-E-3. I ask that you please help me in this endeavor, so I can return to basic training as quickly as possible.

Respectfully yours,





Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
Letter from UAB School of Medicine dated November 26, 2001
Letter from Applicant to Senator dated July 17, 2001
Letter from Applicant to Representative dated July 17, 2001
Letter from United States Senate to Applicant dated August 29, 2001
Letter to United States Senator from Navy Personnel Command Dated August 23, 2001
Letter from Congress of the United States dated July 24, 2001
Letter from Congress of the United States dated August 7, 2001
Letter from Navy Recruiting Command dated August 2, 2001
Letter from United States Senate dated November 16, 2001
Letter from Navy Recruiting Command dated November 6, 2001

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     010206 - 010314  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 010315               Date of Discharge: 010507

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 01 23
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 42

 Highest Rate: SR

 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 :
010427:  Medical evaluation: Diagnosis: Eczema. Dx in layman's terms: weeping, irritated skin. Not correctable to meet Navy standards. Applicant did not request waiver from BUMED-25.

010501:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by Eczema.
010501:  Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

010502:  Commanding Officer, Recruit Training Command, Great Lakes, IL recommended discharge with an uncharacterized Entry Level Separation by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by Eczema (failed medical/physical procurement standards).

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 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 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. By regulation, service members discharged within the first 180 days of enlistment are given the characterization of service of “Entry Level Separation” unless there were unusual circumstances regarding performance or conduct, which would merit an “Honorable” characterization. The Applicant’s service record did not contain any unusual circumstances during his 53 days in the military to warrant a change of discharge to Honorable. The summary of service clearly documents the Applicant’s medical diagnosis of Eczema. The Applicant’s medical condition was determined to have existed prior to entering the service and was not listed on the Applicant’s induction documentation. Eczema is a medical condition, which can be cause for rejection into the Naval Service. The Applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable. Relief not warranted.

Issue 2: 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 of the Armed Forces. An unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment. A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter. However, only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.

 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 " 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 | 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 | ND03-01435

    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 | ND04-00371

    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 | 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 | ND03-00695

    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 | 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 | 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00028

    Original file (ND02-00028.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 000216 with an uncharacterized service 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 states: “My discharge is wrong because I've lied to the Navy that I was a transvestite and...

  • 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 | 2004_Navy | ND04-01200

    Original file (ND04-01200.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Block 28 states that I was separated from the Navy because of erroneous entry and drug abuse. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20001109 with an entry level separation (uncharacterized) for defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment - drug abuse (A).