Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01435
Original file (ND03-01435.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SR, USN
Docket No. 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. 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 20040712. 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 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 stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1. “My discharge was inequitable because the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) gave me an eye consultation before I left for Basic Training. I passed the consultation and qualified for departure to Bootcamp. When I arrived at Recruit Training Command/Great Lakes, Illinois – the Navy gave me a final physical before I was to be released for training with my division. During the eye examination, the Navy discovered that I had an eyesight condition called Retinal Degeneration/Retinal Holes. I did not know about the eye condition prior to the time; however, the Navy concluded that I had, in fact knew about the condition from the start. After that, the Navy transferred me to Naval Training (enter and from there to separation of Military Service (medical discharge with classification code of RE-4) under erroneous enlistment stated on Disharge Papers.”

2. “All that I request is that I am given another chance to serve my country in the United States Navy. As I previously stated, I did not know about the eye problem prior to me enlisting in the Navy. Please consider this case and give me another shot at making my dream a reality again. Thank you.

Sincerely,
M_ W_ A_ (Applicant)

P.S.

I am asking the Review Board to change my discharge from an RE-4 (not eligible) to an RE-1 (eligibility status) so that I can serve my country proudly once again.”

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Eye consultation, dated March 30, 2001
Chronological record of medical care, dated July 30, 2001
Letter from doctor, July 31, 2003

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     010413 - 010723  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 010724               Date of Discharge: 010814

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 00 21
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: Not found in record

 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

*No marks assigned.

 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 :
010730:  Entry Level Medical Separation: Diagnosis: Retinal degeneration/retinal holes.

010806:  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.
010806:  Applicant advised of 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.

010814:  DD Form 214: Applicant discharged with an uncharacterized service by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-130.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20010814 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 available 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: By regulation, members discharged within the first 180 days of enlistment are given characterization of services as “Uncharacterized” 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 less than one month in the military to warrant a change of discharge to general (under honorable conditions). Relief denied.

The Applicant should be aware that, with respect to nonservice-related administrative matters, i.e., VA benefits, civilian employment, educational pursuits, etc., an uncharacterized separation shall be considered the equivalent of an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

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. 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.

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 documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to his discharge at that time. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.


Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 33, effective 13 Jun 01 until 21 Aug 02, 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 | 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00442

    Original file (ND01-00442.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00442 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010223, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable. Documentation Only the applicant's service and medical records were reviewed, as the applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider. Assessment: Headaches Plan: Continue Tylenol as before, Neuro consult, Pt educated.980819: Medical evaluation (Branch Medical Clinic, Great Lakes): Entry...

  • 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00386

    Original file (ND01-00386.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Respectfully yours, 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 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 000329 - 000411 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 000412 Date of Discharge: 000503 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 00 00 22 Inactive: None I...

  • 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 | 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 | 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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-01196

    Original file (ND03-01196.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 Applicant’s service record did not contain any unusual circumstances during her less than three months in the military to warrant a change of discharge to “honorable.” You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint.