Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501272
Original file (MD0501272.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
 DISCHARGE REVIEW
DECISIONAL DOCUMENT
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-Pvt, USMCR
Docket No. MD05-01272

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20050725. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. The Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

 Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20060403. 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 by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous entry.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“I provided to the MEPS documentation on my hearing and the surgery performed from Dr. R_ M_, dated November 14, 2003. After reporting to Boot Camp my ears were still plugged from the flight. I was given an audio logy exam before my ears popped and I didn’t do too well. I was referred to the Beaufort ENT & Allergy and was examined by Dr. K_ B_. He stated in his report “I have seen several recruits who remained with hearing levels worse than this.” The report further states that my hearing is essentially normal. I request my Reentry Code be upgraded to permit me to reenlist .”

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Medical Documents, Beaufort ENT and Allergy, dtd August 13, 2004 (2 pages)
Consultation sheet [electronic version of SF513], dtd August 2, 2004
Report of Medical Examination, dtd November 19, 2003 (2 pages)
Report of Medical History, dtd November 19, 2003 (2 pages)
Medical Prescreen of Medical History Report, dtd November 5, 2003 (4 pages)
Doctor’s operative report, dtd June 17, 2003
Physician’s progress notes from June 19, 2003 to July 21, 2003

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: 20031119             Date of Discharge: 20040824

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

 Active: 00 01 06
          Inactive: 00 08 00

 Time Lost During This Period (days):
         Unauthorized absence: None
         Confinement:              None

 Age at Entry: 17

 Years Contracted: 8

 Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 76

 Highest Rank: Pvt                                   MOS: 9900

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: NA*                                    Conduct: NA*

 Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as stated on the DD Form 214): None

*Not Available


 Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):
UNCHARACTERIZED/ERRONEOUS ENTRY, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6204.2.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

031119:  DD Form 2807-1 9 [Report of Medical History]. Applicant reports that he “had ear surgery.” Physician Summary and Elaboration of all Pertinent Data: “...Tympanoplasty – to close perf TM... check TM’s on PE form...” [Extracted from documents provided by Applicant]

040719:  Commenced active duty for training.
040726:  Applicant dropped to recruit separations platoon due to having a hole in eardrum. [Extracted from recruit evaluation card.]

040726:  Applicant did not meet the required minimum audiology standards. Applicant is dropped to recruit separations platoon as a result of an erroneous enlistment. [Extracted from recruit evaluation card.]

040726:  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation. Applicant acknowledged his discharge would be an entry level separation.

040727:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of erroneous entry. The factual basis for this recommendation was erroneous for hearing loss.

040730:  Commanding Officer, 2 nd RTBN, MCRD Parris Island, SC, recommended Applicant’s discharge by reason of erroneous entry.

040802:  SF513/DD2161 [Consultation Sheet]: “Reason for request: ENT eval requested on 18 y/o male who is getting discharged from Marines for hearing loss that does not meet enlistment standards. Please eval for r probable TM perf. Tympanogram was attempted but unable to obtain seal on the r ear left s/p tympanoplasty 3-4 years ago” [Extracted from documents provided by Applicant]

040813:  Applicant evaluated by Beaufort ENT & Allergy, Beaufort, S.C. “...EXAM: ...On the right side he’s [Applicant] got a large anterior interior perf. This is about 30-40% of the surface area of the drum... IMPRESSION: Bilateral severe eustachian tube dysfunction.” [Extracted from documents provided by Applicant]

040824:  Commanding Officer, Recruit Training Regiment, MCRD Parris Island, SC, approved the Applicant’s recommendation for separation.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20040824 by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous entry (A) with a service characterization of uncharacterized. 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 (B and C). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (D).

 By regulation, members notified of intended recommendation for discharge within the first 180 days of enlistment are eligible for an uncharacterized or entry-level separation characterization of service. Unless there were unusual circumstances regarding a servicemember’s performance or conduct that would merit an honorable characterization, an uncharacterized discharge is generally considered the most appropriate characterization of a member’s service. 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 to honorable.

The Applicant contends that he, “provided to the MEPS documentation on my hearing and the surgery performed from Dr. R_ M_, dated November 14, 2003.” The Applicant further implies that a medical exam conducted during his enlistment at Beaufort ENT & Allergy proved that the Applicant was qualified for military service. The Applicant’s medical exam on 20040813 revealed that the Applicant had a large interior perforation in his right ear and that the Applicant suffered from bilateral severe eustachian tube dysfunction. These conditions were unknown at the time the Applicant enlisted. Separation by reason of erroneous enlistment is warranted when facts, such as the Applicant’s medical conditions discovered on 20040813, if known at the time of the Applicant’s enlistment, would have reasonably been expected to preclude, postpone, or otherwise affect the Marine's eligibility for enlistment, the action was not the result of fraudulent conduct on the part of the Marine and the defect is unchanged in material respects. Therefore, the Board found that the Applicant meet the criteria for separation by reason of erroneous enlistment and found the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable. Relief denied.

 Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code. 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. Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.

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. 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 P1900.16F), effective
01 September 2001 until Present, paragraph 6204, DEFECTIVE ENLISTMENT AND INDUCTION.
B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety .

C. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity .

D. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs .



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 “ http://Boards.law.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:

                  Secretary of the Navy    Council of Review Boards
                   Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board
                   720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
                  Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5023

Similar Decisions

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00200

    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 | 2002_Marine | MD02-00784

    Original file (MD02-00784.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-00784 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020514, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Assessment: Longstanding eustachian tube dysfunction with recurrent otitis media, worse left ear, disqualifying for military service - existed prior to enlistment. 010425: GCMCA [CG, MCB, Camp Pendleton] directed the Applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general) for the convenience of the Government due...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600371

    Original file (MD0600371.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). Recommended that the Applicant be placed on a light duty status pending separation.920812: Naval Hospital Beaufort, SC, Medical Board:According to the recruit’s own statement, accepted by the Board, he had problems with his right hip approximately 1 ½ years prior to entering the military service while playing racquet ball. The Applicant...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00065

    Original file (MD02-00065.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 950912 with an entry level separation (uncharacterized) by reason defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous entry (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).The applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board. By...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501260

    Original file (ND0501260.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Please ensure SR returns with Hardcard and RDC evaluation.020211: Recruit Mental Health, Administrative Separation Recommendation (Major Depressive Disorder). The summary of service clearly documents that erroneous entry was the reason the Applicant was discharged.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600332

    Original file (ND0600332.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Issues, as stated Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:“-I would like for my RE-4 code and/or my narrative reason to be upgraded for eligibility to return to a branch of service.” Appeal denied 031105.031008: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct - pattern of misconduct and misconduct - commission of serious offense. The names, and votes of...

  • 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,...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00542

    Original file (PD2009-00542.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Vertigo and Left AC Shoulder Separation were determined to be medically unacceptable and the CI was referred to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), determined to be unfit for continued Naval service, and separated at 20% disability using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Ratings Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Navy and Department of Defense regulations. While the CI did have chronic low back pain there is insufficient evidence in the STR to determine this condition was unfitting at...

  • 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501203

    Original file (ND0501203.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND05-01203 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050713. I feel that “no waiver for psych “ had a direct impact on the reason for my Discharge as Erroneous Enlistment. SR is suitable to report to Separations Division.021213: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by a borderline personality disorder.