Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500091
Original file (ND0500091.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AR, USN
Docket No. ND05-00091

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20041013. The Applicant requests the 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 list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20050107. 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: 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:

 1. “I SUFFERED AN INJURY DURING MY SHORT TIME IN TRAINING BUT WAS CLASSIFIED AS FIT FOR DUTY. THE INJURY BOTHERS ME TO THIS DAY. LINE 24 OF MY DD-214 SHOWS THAT I RECEIVED AN ENTRY LEVEL SEPARATION. LINE 28 GIVE THE NARRATIVE REASON AS ERRONEOUS ENLISTMENT. ENLISTED IN ERROR. I ENLISTED HONORABLY AND TRUTHFULLY.
ERRONEOUS ENLISTMENT LEANS TOWARD FRAUD ON MY PART AND YET ON LINE 13 IT SHOWS THAT I RECEIVED THE NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL. WHY WOULD YOU AWARD THIS TO SOMEONE WHO ENLISTED FRAUDULANTLY?

I WOULD LIKE A CHANGE IN THE STATUS SO THAT I MAY SEEK ASSISTANCE FOR THE INJURIES I SUFFERED WHEN I WAS IN TRAINING.”
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Ltr frm NPRC dtd 041029
14 pages from Applicant’s medical record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     921210 - 930207  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 930208               Date of Discharge: 930325

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 01 19
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 84

 Highest Rate: AR

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMF*                 Behavior: NMF             OTA: NMF

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

*NMF – No marks found in service record

 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 :
930318:  Medical evaluation:
                  1. Entry level medical separation.
2.       Diagnosis
 Unstable L knee secondary to posterior courtiate ligament tear, osteochondritis dissecans.
                   Assessment: 1. PCL tear 2. Stable Fracture 3. OCD
 Plan: 1. EPTE ELMS 2. Patient Education
930318:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for entry level separation by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by unstable left knee and osteochondritis dissecans, existing prior to entry.
930318:  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.

930322:  CO, RTC directed the Applicant's entry-level discharge 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 19930325 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 "Uncharacterized" or entry-level separation unless there were unusual circumstances regarding performance or conduct, which would merit an "honorable" characterization. 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 should be aware that, with respect to nonservice-related administrative matters, i.e., VA benefits, educational pursuits, and especially civilian employment, an uncharacterized separation is considered the equivalent of an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) discharge. Relief denied.

The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Navy Discharge Review Board. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veterans' benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.

The separation process was in compliance with the Naval Military Personnel Manual. Competent medical authority diagnosed the Applicant on 19930318 as having an unstable knee secondary to posterior courtiate ligament tear that existed prior to enlistment. In accordance with regulations, a member may be separated on the basis of erroneous enlistment when enlistment would not have occurred if the relevant facts had been known by the Navy (or had appropriate directives been followed), it was not the result of fraudulent conduct on the part of the member and the defect is unchanged in any material respect. The Applicant was processed for separation by reason of erroneous enlistment due to an unstable knee for a condition that existed prior to enlistment. No other Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describe why the applicant was discharged. To change the Narrative Reason for Separation would be inappropriate.

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. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 5, effective 05 Mar 93 until 19 Dec 93, Article 3620280, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF DEFECTIVE ENLISTMENTS AND INDUCTIONS – ERRONEOUS ENLISTMENT.

B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

C. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety .
D. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity .

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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00479

    Original file (ND03-00479.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Entry Level Medical Separation – Lateral Meniscal Tear.001121: USS TRANQUILLITY Medical Clinic, Naval Hospital, Great Lakes, IL: Entry Level Medical Separation due to diagnosis Knee Arthralgia, Chronic. 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).By regulation, members discharged within the first 180 days of enlistment are given characterization of service...

  • 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 | ND99-00963

    Original file (ND99-00963.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:DAV's comments/recommendation ltr of Apr 19, 2000 Copy of USN DD Form 214 (98Mar10 - 98AUG25) (2 copies) Copy of USA DD Form 214 (950411 - 950606) Medical Service Record Entries (4 pages) Separation Authority ltr (CO, RTC GLakes) dtd Aug 20 1998 Applicant's Notification Procedure Letter dtd 19 Aug 98 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00705

    Original file (ND01-00705.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-SA, USNR-R 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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-01018

    Original file (ND99-01018.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    When I joined the United States Navy, I was planning to remain in that branch as my career. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 950202 with an uncharacterized (entry level separation) by reason of erroneous enlistment due to failure of medical/physical procurement standards (A). You may obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to: DA Military Review Boards Agency Management Information and Support...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00749

    Original file (ND02-00749.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 010829 with an uncharacterized service (entry level separation) for defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment (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).Issue 1: An Entry Level Separation (ELS) is not a dishonorable...

  • 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 | 2000_Navy | ND00-00420

    Original file (ND00-00420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00420 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000215, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions and the reason for the discharge be changed. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980929 with an Uncharacterized service (entry level separation) by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment (A). ...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00237

    Original file (ND00-00237.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 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 940416 Date of Discharge: 940712 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 00 00 20 Inactive: 00 02 07 PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00066

    Original file (ND99-00066.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    code on my discharge papers changed to an R.E.-3 so that I may go back in Please consider me for re-enlistment into the U.S. Navy by changing the R.E. 971217: Branch Medical Clinic, Great Lakes evaluation (podiatry): Diagnosis - Pes Planus with symptoms, entry level medical separation for EPTE condition. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge and the reason for discharge was proper and...