Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600529
Original file (MD0600529.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD06-00529

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20060302 . 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 20070118 . 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 and reason for discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain Uncharacterized by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous entry.

PART I - ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Decisional Issues

Impropriety: Applicant was unaware of his medical condition.

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 4)
Letter from Applicant, dtd February 22, 2006
Letter from D. L. K_, BCNR, dtd December 27, 2005
DD Form 149 , dtd October 20, 2005
Letter to BCNR from Applicant , dtd October 20, 2005 (2 pgs)
 Excerpts from Medical Record (9 pgs)
Excerpts from Service Record (12 pgs)
 Non-military Medical Documents (31 pgs)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USMCR (DEP)    20040923 - 20050213       COG
          Active: None
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 20050214              Date of Discharge: 20050414

Length of Service (years, months, days):

 Active: 00 0 2 0 1
         Inactive: None

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

Age at Entry: 1 9

Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 43

Highest Rank: PFC                                    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 Applicable


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 :

050404:  Medical Evaluation by K_ C. C_ (PA-C Med Boards, MCDR Parris Island SC ) , Charleston NH, SC indicates applicant was referred from the Sport s Medicine Clinic for discharge evaluation. The Applicant was evaluated in Sports Medicine for a shoulder contusion initially. During his evaluation, he admitted to chronic back pain. Examination revealed an increased Iordotic curve of his thoracic spine. X-rays were obtained and reported as consistent with Scheuermann’s Disease, therefore, it was recommended that he be discharged from the military.
         A/P: 1. Juvenile Osteochondrosis of Spine
         Disposition: Released w/Work/Duty Limitations.
050404:  Medical Disposition Officer, K. C. C_, PA-C found Applicant did not meet the minimum standards for enlistment. “ Applicant’s present condition is “Not Physically Qualified for Enlistment”. Diagnosis: Scheuermann’s Disease. ” Recommendation: Discharge by reason of Erroneous Enlistment.

050404:  Applicant found physically qualified for separation.

0 50405 :  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge (entry-level separation) by reason of erroneous entry. The factual basis for this recommendation was Scheuermann’s Disease.

050405:  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.

050407:  Commanding Officer recommended separation by reason of erroneous entry.

050414 :  Commanding Officer , Recruit Training Regiment , approved the Applicant’s discharge .


PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20050414 by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous entry (A) with a service characterization of u ncharacterized . 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).
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 three months in the military to warrant a change of discharge to honorable. Relief is not warranted.

The Applicant contends that an erroneous enlistment did not occur because there was no preexisting condition and that the condition was unknown to the Applicant. Regulations stipulate that a Marine may be separated on the basis of an erroneous enlistment, induction, reenlistment or extension of enlistment if:
•         Enlistment would not have occurred had the relevant facts been known by the Marine Corps or had appropriate directives been followed;
•         The action was not the result of fraudulent conduct on the part of the Marine; and
•         The defect is unchanged in material respects.
 Competent medical authority diagnosed the Applicant with Scheuermann’s Disease, a condition which existed prior to enlistment and would have prevented the Applicant’s enlistment. No other narrative reason for separation more clearly describes why the Applicant was discharge. Relief denied.

The following is included for the edification of the Applicant. The Applicant was not discharged by reason of fraudulent enlistment, which requires s deliberate material misrepresentation, 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 Marine's eligibility for enlistment or induction. Additionally, t he Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the Naval 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.

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 .

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 | MD03-00928

    Original file (MD03-00928.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ]020412: DD Form 214: Applicant discharged uncharacterized by reason of a fraudulent entry into the U.S. Marine Corps, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. Since the Board cannot determine if the Applicant was notified for administrative separation due to an erroneous entry, the Board cannot change the narrative reason to erroneous entry as requested by the Applicant. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint.

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600175

    Original file (MD0600175.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A: Stress fracture right Femur (illegible) P: Physical Therapy Instructions and Handouts: Ankle Sprain complete treatment with tilt board continued; Contract/Relax buddy stretches adductors; Isometric Quad exercise Ice 2-3 x day (illegible) Duty status: MRP (Protocol UB/Swim/C.C.) Continue with UB protocol until 100% pain free.960426: Medical entry: Sports Medicine Clinic, Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego CA, HM1 K. J. R_, USN: Patient (Applicant) here for 2 week follow up and Eval for...

  • 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,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500750

    Original file (ND0500750.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/FRAUDULENT ENTRY INTO MILITARY SERVICE, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-134 (formerly 3630100). PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501161

    Original file (ND0501161.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND05-01161 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050708. I have let myself and the Navy down. The separation code “JDT”, fraudulent entry into military service, drug abuse, was substantiated by the Applicant’s statement to medical officers that he had used drugs prior to entry to active duty after having denied any pre-service drug use during the enlistment and induction process.

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501123

    Original file (MD0501123.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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. SNR was screened for allegations.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00346

    Original file (ND00-00346.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Erroneous Enlistment (look at Encl 2, paragraph 1, pg 1-2)2. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 970610 with an entry level separation (uncharacterized) 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).In response to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600458

    Original file (ND0600458.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Diagnosis: Alcohol dependent in remission x 1 year/ Anxiety NOS Recommendation: 1) Supportive insight oriented psychotherapy was given 2) Xanax 0.5 mg Disp #10 ½ tab po 3) F/U in one week Saw service member in F/U, reported doing well w/ xanax. Recommend MM3 C_ (Applicant) be separated from the naval service with a General Discharge.” 931020: Commanding Officer, Transient Personnel Unit, San Diego authorized discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00300

    Original file (MD04-00300.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    J_ A. N_ falsified the signature of the ex-wife (M_) of C_ E. H_ (Applicant) on the DD Form 1966/3, Aug. 1997 (Exhibit 1, Section VI) to recruit C_ (Applicant) into the USMC. N_ should have been investigated.C_ (Applicant) requests The Discharge Board to upgrade his DD 214, block 26., be changed to read “ERRONEOUS ENLISTMENT”, and that the blocks 25 and 26 be changed accordingly to enable him to live with honor and compete on a level playing field for meaningul employment. 000630: GCMCA...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501272

    Original file (MD0501272.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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. 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...