Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00019
Original file (MD03-00019.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD03-00019

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 20020926 requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Entry Level Separation or Uncharacterized. The Applicant further requested that the reason for the discharge be changed to “Re-entry into USMC.” The Applicant requested a personal appearance hearing discharge review before the Board in the Washington National Capital Region or a personal appearance hearing review before a traveling panel closest to Shreveport, LA. The Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel, all hearings are held in the Washington, D.C. area. The NDRB also advised that the Board first conducts a documentary review prior to a personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20030828. 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. The Board’s vote was unanimous that the reason for discharge and the character of service, as authorized, shall not change. The discharge shall remain: HONORABLE/INVOL DIS (ERRON ENTRY) (OTH),
 authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6204.2.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

 1. My Discharge was improper, or inequitable, because it was a decision based on one Doctors opinion, out of fifteen Doctor’s. The fourteen other doctor’s report’s said, the same thing. “That:.., I had no problem, and I would not be seen again on this matter.”
The Doctor that said, I had a problem with my arches, that caused my leg’s to swell, was the last one out of the fifteen Doctor’s. I have proven that this was an improper, or inequitable decision. And, I would like this error of injustices corrected.

2. I think my re-entry code should be change. So, I can re-enter the Marine Corps, and get on with my career. Seeing how this was an improper, and a inequitable error of Discharge.
“Thank You”!

Sincerely, (B_ D. P_ - Applicant)

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Copies of DD Form 214 (Copy 4 and 1)
Applicant letter stating his claim of improper discharge
Applicant’s Radiology Report dtd Jun 9, 2000
Applicant’s Medical Board Report, dtd Aug 31, 1994 (3 pages)
Character Reference ltr from M. P. P_, undated
Former Employer ltr from D_ B_, Mid-South Protection, Inc, dtd May 29, 2002
Former Employer ltr from R_ J_, Cascade Hardwood, Inc, dtd Dec 3, 1997
VA’s Rating Decision dtd Jul 18, 1995
Copies of Applicant’s service and medical record (90 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                940204 - 940228  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 940301               Date of Discharge: 941220

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 09 20
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 29                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 34

 Highest Rank: PFC

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 4.3 (2)                       Conduct: 4.3 (2)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

 Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (as administratively corrected):

HONORABLE/ INVOL DIS (ERRON ENTRY) (OTH), authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6204.2.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

940831:  Medical Board, Naval Hospital Camp Lejeune, NC: Diagnosed with Pes Cavus, Bilateral, Symptomatic with military training. Existed Prior to Entry. Recommend discharge due to enlistment in error.
941004:  Applicant accepted findings of medical board, elected not to submit a statement of rebuttal to the medical board action approved on 9410006.

941121:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for honorable discharge by reason of erroneous entry as evidenced by medical condition which existed prior to entry into the Marine Corps.

941122:          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.

941122:  Commanding Officer recommended honorable discharge by reason of erroneous enlistment. The factual basis for this recommendation was due to a medical diagnoses that existed prior to entry. Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim): “Private First Class P_ (Applicant) has been diagnosed by a medical board as having a pes cavus, an abnormal hollowness of the soles of his feet, a condition that existed prior to joining the Marine Corps, and one that impairs his rendering any further useful service. Since Private First Class P_ (Applicant) entered the Marine Corps, his medical condition has continued to progress and cause pain in both feet while performing any type of military training. It is the opinion of the undersigned that continued active service would only aggravate his condition. His effectiveness as a Marine is limited and his physical condition is interfering with his effective performance of duty. I strongly concur with the report of the medical board and recommend that Private First Class P_ be discharged as expeditiously as possible”.

941218:  GCMCA [CG, Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune] directed the Applicant's honorable discharge by reason of erroneous entry into the U.S. Marine Corps on the basis of not meeting the physical standards for enlistment.
961023:  BCNR record review Docket Number 9148-95 conducted. Determination: reason for discharge proper and equitable; application denied.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was honorably discharged (administratively corrected) on 19941220 by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to an erroneous enlistment (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).

Issues 1 and 2. The Board does not consider the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s stated condition and implied incorrect diagnosis to be of sufficient nature to warrant an upgrade to his characterization of service. No other narrative reason other than that of defective enlistment that originated from his clearly documented medical limitations at the time of enlistment more clearly describes the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s processing for administrative separation. Relief denied.

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. Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment. A request for waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter. Relief is therefore denied.

The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country. Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such error or inequity is evident during the Applicant’s enlistment. Additionally, there is no law, or regulation, which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time, or good conduct in civilian life, subsequent to leaving the service. Relief not warranted.

The Applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of his discharge. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.




Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A . The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, ( MCO P1900.16D, effective 890627 until 950817, paragraph 6204, DEFECTIVE ENLISTMENT AND INDUCTION.
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 | 2003_Marine | MD03-00894

    Original file (MD03-00894.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 (Member copies 1 and 4) Warrant for promotion to LCpl One page from Marine Corps Promotion Manual PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USMCR(J) 940506...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00922

    Original file (MD04-00922.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Letter from...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00200

    Original file (MD03-00200.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-00200 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20021113, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. As a subsequent issue, I am requesting that you record a recommendation for reenlistment as part of your decision. The Applicant's service record did not contain any unusual circumstances during his twelve days in the Marine Corps to warrant a change of discharge to "honorable."

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-01192

    Original file (MD99-01192.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Applicant's LES upon discharge Applicant's application (DD Form 149) to BCNR dtd 4-16-99 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USMCR(J) 970530 - 971013 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 971014 Date of Discharge: 971212 Length of Service (years, months,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00236

    Original file (MD02-00236.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-00236 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020109, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 950615 with an uncharacterized service (entry level separation) by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment alcohol abuse (A). By regulation, members...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00807

    Original file (MD03-00807.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 VA letter dated October 1, 1998 Nine pages from Applicant’s medical record PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USMCR(J) 860913 – 870310 COG...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00804

    Original file (MD01-00804.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Commanding Officer's Recommendation for Discharge dtd 000504 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USMCR(J) 000225 - 000312 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 000313 Date of Discharge: 000510 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 00 01...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00414

    Original file (MD00-00414.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD00-00414 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000209, requested that the reason for the discharge be changed to medical (erroneous) The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. I am requesting that the NARRATIVE REASON FOR SEPARATION (Block 28, DD 214) for my Entry Level Separation changed from "Defective Enlistment & Induction -Fraudulent Enlistment" to "Medical-Erroneous." PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01023

    Original file (MD04-01023.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The factual basis for this recommendation was a diagnosis of asthma, existing prior to service.980401: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with an entry level separation (uncharacterized) by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to an erroneous entry as evidenced by your preservice medical conditions ASTHMA. PART III –...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00651

    Original file (ND00-00651.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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). In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found that although the...