Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501131
Original file (ND0501131.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SN, USN
Docket No. ND05-01131

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20050701. The Applicant requests that her 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 20051215. After a thorough review of all available 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 failed medical/physical procurement standards .

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“I’m trying to upgrade my discharge to HONORABLE. I was told by my recruiter not to say anything in the moment of truth session. My doctor told me that it should be fine to get into the military, but when getting my teeth cleaned or fixed, I would need special antibiotics. Without those antibiotics, my heart would possibly get infected and I would die. Therefore, when I went through all tests and had to get teeth work done I spoke up about the antibiotics and was later placed on Light Limited Duty. Military doctor told me if I stayed I would stay on Light Limited Duty. I came to train, but my medical situation prevented that, so I leave.”

 Documentation
In addition to the service and dental records, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     19990930 - 20000529      COG
         Active: None
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 20000530             Date of Discharge: 20000622

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 00 23
         Inactive: None

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

 Age at Entry: 18

 Years Contracted: 4 (12 month extension)

 Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 36

 Highest Rate: SN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NA*                                    Behavior: NA*             OTA: NA*

 Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214): None
* Not Available


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

UNCHARACTERIZED/ FAILED MEDICAL/PHYSICAL PROCUREMENT STANDARDS, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-130 (formerly Article 3620280).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

000110:  Applicant diagnosed with mitral valve prolapse.

 000607:  Applicant answered “yes” to dental questionnaire regarding mitral valve prolapse.

000613:  USS Tranquillity Medical Clinic, Naval Hospital, Great Lakes, IL. Diagnosis - Mitral valve prolapse with conditional right ventricular. Headache Migraine stress related. Applicant did not have nor requested a pre-service waiver. This condition is not correctable to meet naval standards.
000616:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by mitral valve prolapse and migraine headaches.
000616:  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.
000619:  Commanding Officer, Recruit Training Command, authorized discharge with an uncharacterized service by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by mitral valve prolapse and migraine headaches. Commanding Officer’s comments: An erroneous enlistment has occurred. I authorize separation from the naval service with an Entry Level Separation. Reentry Code: Not Eligible (RE-4).

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 20000622 by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to failed medical/physical procurement standards (A) with a service characterization of uncharacterized. After a thorough review of all available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (B and C).

Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have occurred during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question. By regulation, a member notified of the intended recommendation for discharge within the first 180 days of enlistment is eligible for an uncharacterized/entry-level separation. An uncharacterized discharge is the most appropriate characterization of service unless, there were unusual circumstances regarding a servicemember’s performance that would merit an honorable characterization. The Applicant's service record did not contain unusual circumstances to warrant a change. Relief denied.

The Applicant states that she was told by her recruiter not to tell anyone about her heart condition. The Applicant bears the burden of presenting substantial and credible evidence to support her issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that the recruiter misled her through the recruitment process. The record does document the Applicant’s voluntary statement on 20000607 that she had a heart condition known as mitral valve prolapse, civilian medical records dated 20000107 documented this condition. The Board found that the Applicant deliberately misrepresented her medical condition during the enlistment process, including the omission or concealment of facts, which, if known at the time would have reasonably been expected to preclude, postpone, or otherwise affect the Sailor’s eligibility for enlistment or induction. The NDRB found no inequity or impropriety in the Applicant's service characterization based upon this issue. Relief denied.

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.

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 her 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 18, effective 12 Dec 97 until 12 Jun 01, Article 1910-130 (formerly 3620280), Separation 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 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 .

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 | 2005_Navy | ND0500748

    Original file (ND0500748.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION The Applicant contends that he did not fraudulently enter the military service because he did not have a diagnosed disqualifying anxiety disorder prior to the Navy.

  • 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...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00035

    Original file (PD2012-00035.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB adjudicated the left hip pain secondary to healed inferior pubic ramus stress fracture condition as unfitting, rated 10%, with application of the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). (2) is limited to those conditions which were determined by the PEB to be specifically unfitting for continued military service; or, when requested by the CI, those condition(s) “identified but not determined to be unfitting by the PEB.” The ratings for unfitting conditions...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00431

    Original file (ND01-00431.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Entry level medical separation for an EPTE condition. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 001103 with an uncharacterized (entry level separation) by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by chronic tension type headaches (failed medical/physical procurement standards) (A). Relief is not warranted.The applicant’ s second issue states: “I believe my discharge should be...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9803224

    Original file (9803224.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Effective Apr 95, the applicant received a 30% disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) for his “aortic insufficiency/stenosis with mitral valve prolapse.” _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and indicated that as early as 1986, the applicant was diagnosed with valvular heart disease, most likely secondary to rheumatic fever, the disease affecting the aortic as...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00066

    Original file (PD2010-00066.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The CI was medically separated with a 10% disability rating. In the matter of the right arm and leg weakness conditions, migraine headache condition, vascular dementia and mood disorder condition, the Board unanimously agrees that it cannot recommend a finding of unfit for additional rating at separation. I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080009020

    Original file (20080009020.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his 24 February 2005 Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) to show he was medically disabled instead of fit for duty, assign a disability rating, and recommend that he be placed on the permanent disability retired list (PDRL). Army Regulation (AR) 635-40, governs the evaluation for physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of a physical disability. Soldiers on active duty and RC Soldiers not on active...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011203

    Original file (20080011203.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant was identified as being non-deployable, non-retainable in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standard of Medical Fitness), and was recommended for discharge from the service. Based on a review of objective medical evidence of record, the PEB found that the applicant’s medical and physical impairments prevented reasonable performance of duties required by her grade and military specialty and recommended a disability percentage of 20 percent for chronic left knee pain and 0...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00651

    Original file (ND04-00651.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). 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. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01307

    Original file (ND03-01307.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Applicant's service record did not contain any unusual circumstances during her less than one month in the military to warrant a change of discharge to "honorable." 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...