Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00490
Original file (ND04-00490.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND04-00490

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20040203. The Applicant requests the reason for the discharge be changed to “honorable/medical.” The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that he was approaching the 15 year point for review by this Board and was encouraged to attend a personal appearance hearing in the Washington, D. C. area. The Applicant did not respond.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040922. 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 and narrative reason of the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: ENTRY LEVEL SEPARATION/Erroneous enlistment - enlisted, reenlisted, extended, or inducted in error), authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620280.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

Issue 1: “I went into the Navy in April 89 with no medical problems but injured my back while in basic training. My condition afterward led to an early release from basic training because of my back conditions. However, on my DD214 I was not given a medical discharge this had (led) hindered my ability to seek and maintain gainful employment without having to quit. This is why I am seeking an upgrade to an honorable medical discharge on my DD214 and my RE Code on my DD214 to be changed. I was given a direct order to sign those release medical papers.”
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Copy of Medical Evaluation from Saint Augustine’s College Health Service (3 pages)
Copy of DD Form 214
Copy of Applicant’s DD Form 180

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: 890421               Date of Discharge: 890808

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 03 18
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 23                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 13 1/2                    AFQT: 27

 Highest Rate: SR

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: None        Behavior: None            OTA: None

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

ENTRY LEVEL SEPARATION/Erroneous enlistment - enlisted, reenlisted, extended, or inducted in error, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620280.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :
890727:  Report of Medical Board: Diagnosis is SPONDYLOLYTHESIS, L3-L4, EPTE; Chronic Low Back Pain. Recommended for discharge from the Navy as unfit for further duty in accordance with NAVMEDCOM 1910.2G.

890727:  Applicant signed statement concerning the finding of the medical board indicating that he be discharged by reason of enlistment in error, i.e. failure to meet enlistment physical standards.
890728:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with an uncharacterized service by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment.
890728:  Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

890731:  Commanding Officer, Recruit Training Command, San Diego directed discharge with an uncharacterized service by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19890808 with an entry level separation for defective enlistment and induction due to 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).

Issue 1: By regulation, members discharged within the first 180 days of enlistment are given characterization of service 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 three months in the military to warrant a change of discharge to “honorable.” 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.

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.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A), effective 15 Jun 87 until 13 Dec 89, Article 3620280, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL- 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 | 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 | 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 | 2000_Navy | ND00-00386

    Original file (ND00-00386.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00386 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000203, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions and remove the reason for the discharge. Characterization of service as General is not warranted as the applicant’s active service was only 16 days. The applicant was properly processed for discharge as erroneous enlistment, however, an administrative error on the DD214 states “personality...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01247

    Original file (ND99-01247.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-01247 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990927, 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 881024 with an entry level separation for defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment (A). PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00846

    Original file (ND00-00846.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00846 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000622, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980203 with an uncharacterized service for defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment (A). Even though the applicant may have received a waiver for his ankle, the fact remains that the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00156

    Original file (ND00-00156.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    My service record will reflect much involvement within my unit. 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), but that the DD214 incorrectly listed the reason for discharge as Personality Disorder.The applicant states in issue 1 that his “ The applicant was properly and equitably discharged for erroneous enlistment based on the fact that he would not have...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00859

    Original file (ND04-00859.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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. 020219: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment as...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00324

    Original file (ND01-00324.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 991230 with an Uncharacterized service for Defective enlistment and induction due to Erroneous enlistment (A). The Board determined, the medical exam was performed by competent medical authority and the applicant was diagnosed with dysthymic disorder. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00531

    Original file (ND02-00531.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 970127 with an entry level separation (uncharacterized) for defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment (A). The Applicant’s service record did not contain any unusual circumstances during his less than two months in the military to warrant a change of discharge. Relief denied.The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.

  • 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.