Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00674
Original file (ND02-00674.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AR, USNR
Docket No. ND02-00674

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 020415, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293. Subsequent to the application, the Applicant obtained representation by the Disabled American Veterans organization.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 030116. 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 3620280.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1. My name is B_ A_ (Applicant). I had went to boot camp in 1996 of Dec. I am requesting an up grade on my DD 214. I had sizzures in 1993 with no fault to myself. I had joined t he Navy in 1996 to be a part of a proud family & tradition & serve my country. To no fault of the Navy I was discharged for my sizzures prior to this date for sizzures. I am requesting that my DD 214 be changed to a general discharge. For this reason I want to go back into the Navy so I may better myself have a proud family, and be able to say I did this and accomplished this for myself. I have not had any sizzures for over 6 years. I haven't been on any medications for over 6 years. So in closing I would like to say that, I want to further my education with the Navy for myself, my wife and my daughter also to go past a new mile stone in my life for a better future fo my self & for my family. Thank you sirs, madams for your time and hope to once again be a part of the worlds best Armed Forces once again.

Submitted by DAV:

2. After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces fo 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 request tat he be given the opportunity to change his re-enlistment codes so he may in fact re-enter active duty military service as well as have his discharge character - changed to reflect a honorable discharge.

The (FSM) entered the United States Naval Services on December 12, 1996 and separated on January 02, 1997 a total period of only 21 days, without any UCMJ punishments during this short period. The FSM now respectfully request that he be given the opportunity to re-enter military service. The FSM states he was separated from active duty in boot camp due to his seizure disorder. The FSM sates now he had not experienced any seizures in over a period of six (6) years, which should entitle him to re-enlistment in the US Naval Forces if medically acceptable.

The (FSM) now respectfully requests an equitable standard be applied as well as equity in treatment in seeking the boards' approval to afford him the opportunity to re-entry active military service as a member of the United States Naval Forces.

We also respectfully request that the board consider each reasonable explanation submitted by the (FSM) who now respectfully request he be given the opportunity to re-enter in the Untied States Naval Forces due to his seizure disorder is no longer a medical concern, since he had not had experienced a seizure disorder in over six (6) years and to change the character and narrative of his discharge and re-enlistment code.

We ask for the Boards careful and sympathetic consideration of all the evidence of record used in rendering a fair and impartial decision. These issues do not supersede any issues previously submitted by the applicant.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record (medical record could not be obtained by the Board), the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant's Consent, Deaconess Billings Clinic, dated Mar 22, 2002, consenting to releasing medical information
Pre-Service Medical information from Deaconess Medical Center, dated Sep 16, 1994
Applicant's letter to the Board dated Mar 22, 2002
Campbell County Fire Department's letter concerning Membership
 Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: None
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 960427               Date of Discharge: 970102

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 00 21
         Inactive: 00 07 16

 Age at Entry: 24                          Years Contracted: 8

 Education Level: GED              AFQT: 32

 Highest Rate: AR

 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: None

*No Marks Found in service record.

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

UNCHARACTERIZED (ENTRY LEVEL SEPARATION)/FAILED MEDICAL/PHYSICAL PROCUREMENT STANDARDS, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620280.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :
[Applicant's service record did not contain the discharge processing package and the Board was unable to obtain the Applicant's medical records.]
960323:  Applicant did not indicate pre-service seizure on the enlistment physical exam.
961212:  Commenced 36 month active duty under the Airman Apprenticeship Training Program.
970102:  Applicant signed a Page 13 (Administrative Remarks - NAVPERS 1070/613) acknowledging that he was ineligible for reenlistment due to "seizures" and elected not to enroll in health care insurance.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 970102 with an uncharacterized service (entry level separation) 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).

 Responding to the Applicant’s request for a characterized discharge, the Board noted that the Applicant completed 21 days of total active service, short of the 180 days required for a characterization of service as other than uncharacterized. The uncharacterized nature of the applicant’s discharge is not adverse or punitive. This description exists to describe the service of individuals separated before they demonstrate the character of their service, honorable or otherwise. As the applicant did not complete the minimum length of service to make him eligible for honorable characterization, due to his medical condition, relief is denied.

Furthermore, the applicant was diagnosed with a seizure disorder by competent medical authority and was recommended for administrative separation from the Navy. Thus, the Board finds that the Reason for Discharge reflects the applicant's health status at the time of his discharge, and was proper and equitable at the time of issuance. "Failed Medical Procurement Standards" is an accurate narrative description of the reason for the applicant's discharge. The contention that the seizure disorder no longer exists or has been overcome does not provide a legitimate basis to alter history.

Finally, concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reentry into the naval service or any other of the Armed Forces. The NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy or Marine Corps. Reenlistment policy of the naval service is promulgated by Commander, Navy Recruiting Command, 5722 Integrity Drive, Bldg 784, Millington, TN 38054. Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable "RE" code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment. A request for a waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter. Relief, is therefore, denied.

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge. The Applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.


Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 14, effective 03 Oct 96 until 11 Dec 97, 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-01181

    Original file (ND01-01181.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-01181 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010917, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review 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 request that he be given the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00518

    Original file (ND04-00518.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions and the reason for the discharge be changed to general. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19970115 with an entry level separation (uncharacterized) for defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment (A). Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no...

  • 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 | ND02-00594

    Original file (ND02-00594.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. I informed my recruiter of this, and he told me that since I wasn't having any problem after the concussion and if I was serious about joining then I shouldn't mention the concussion. I was told that I was going to be discharged from the military on a ELMS (Entry Level Medical Separation) and could rejoin in two years to five years.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00303

    Original file (ND01-00303.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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).The applicant’s issue states: “My discharge was due to me being a scared 19 yr. old. 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. PART IV...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00389

    Original file (ND02-00389.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    My undesirable discharge was improper because it was based on a waiverble pre-existing medical condition that had in no way any affect on the pain I was seen for. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Six pages from Applicant's service record PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 980727 -...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00162

    Original file (ND03-00162.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00162 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20021106, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. “Respectfully request my discharge be changed from Uncharacterized (entry level separation) RE-4 to allow me to re-enter the U.S. military. 010427: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00016

    Original file (ND01-00016.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant should consult a recruiter to determine requirements for reenlistment. 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. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00569

    Original file (ND01-00569.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00569 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010327, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. My discharge was an uncharacterized Entry Level Separation and would like my level raised to an RE-1, so that I may re-enlist into the United States Navy.I was born with Optical Neuropathy, which is optic nerve damage. The Board reviewed the applicant’s record and found the Uncharacterized (Entry Level Separation)...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00670

    Original file (ND00-00670.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION For the applicant’s service to be characterized as Honorable he must have served over 180 days or have such meritorious service that would warrant an honorable discharge. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint.