Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600604
Original file (MD0600604.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-LCpl, USMC
Docket No. MD06-00604

Applicant ’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20060327 . 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 20070103 . After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, inequity i n the characterization of the Applicant ’s service was discovered by the NDRB. The Board’s vote was unanimous that the discharge shall change t o: HONORABLE/ CONDITION NOT A DISABILITY , authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 62 03.2 .

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION


Issues, as stated

 Applicant ’s issues, as stated on the application:
“ Dear Panel or commitee I feel that I should have a honorable Discharge other than a general under honorable because with a better discharge I would be able to go to school with my M. GI. Bill and better represent the USMC. An the fact that I never got into any trouble and I served all but a month out of my contract with only having medical issues and nothing more. I did my j ob as the best of my ability. I aslo served in operation Irq freedom with no problems, No the fact when I came home there were Marine getting honorable discharges an they had a hole lot of problems. DUI an overweight An I feel that I should have gotting an honorable as well due to the fact that I was a good Marine with no problems, All except I had some medical problems.
So I respectfully ask that my discharge be upgraded t o a n honorable, form General (under honorable conditions)
 So I can better serve my community
Thank you,
Sincely J_ K_ ( Applicant ) (LCpl USMC) ”
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant ’s DD Form 214 (Service 2)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USMCR (DEP)    20000629 - 20010826               COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 20010827              Date of Discharge: 20050715

Length of Service (years, months, days):

 Active: 0 3 1 0 19
         Inactive: None

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

Age at Entry: 18
Years Contracted: 4
Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 32

Highest Rank: LCpl                                   MOS: 3531

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 4.3 (8 )                                 Conduct: 4.3 ( 8 )
Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as stated on the DD Form 214) : Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, National Defense Service Medal, Presidential Unit Citation-Navy, L etter of Appreciation, Rifle Badge Qualification (Marksman), Pistol Qualification Badge (Marksman)

Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):
GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/CONDITION NOT A DISABILITY, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6203.2.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

031029:  Counseling: Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (Negligent in duties as a Refueler Operator while operating a R-10 mobile refueler. Lack of attention to detail and failure to operate refueler in a proper manner resulted in Applicant running over the water drain pipe on the relaxation chamber to fill stand #2). Placed in a probationary status for six months. Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary warning issued.

 031029:  Acknowledged understanding of eligibility but not recommended for promotion to Cpl for the month of Oct Nov 2003 promotion period because of damage to government property . Applicant chose not to make a statement.

040121:  Acknowledged understanding of eligibility but not recommended for promotion to Cpl for the month of January because of weight control.

040209:  Acknowledged understanding of eligibility but not recommended for promotion to Cpl for the month of Feb and Mar because of weight control. Applicant chose not to make a statement.

 040211:  Abbreviated Limited Duty Medical Board Report , LT M_ C R_ MC, USNR, Physician and CAPT K. L. G_, MC, USN, Convening Authority:
         Diagnosis: 1. PFPS. 2. R ITBS.
         Circumstances of injury: Developed B knee pain while running, stairs x 2 years, no h/o trauma.
         Tr eatment plan: Physical therapy, ITB stretches.
         Limitations: Modified PFT (no run); may PT to level of tolerance. No marching, no impact activities.
         Period of Limited Duty: 8 months.
 Patient A dministration endorsement , LTjg E. S_, MSC, USN: Line of duty determination required? No. Member entered into tracking system 040217.
 Parent C ommand endorsement, Capt (name illegible): The member is presently assigned duties as Bulk Fuel Specialist and can be usefully employed at this command considering the medical restriction of activity. A line of duty determination is not required and has not been made.
040217:  Commanding Officer, Naval Hospital, Camp Lejeune forwarded f ormal Report of Limited Duty Board proceedings to Command . Limitations of duty are: No running, marching and impact activities. Modified PFT and may PT to level of tolerance. Applicant signed statement of understanding of Limited Duty Board.

040312:  Acknowledged understanding of eligibility but not recommended for promotion to Corporal for the month of April 2004 because of BCP/RPCP assignment.
040415:  Acknowledged understanding of eligibility but not recommended for promotion to Corporal for the month of May for P F T failure. Applicant chose not to make a statement.
040518:  Acknowledged understanding of eligibility but not recommended for promotion to Corporal for the month of June for PFT failure.

040616:  Acknowledged understanding of eligibility but not recommended for promotion to Corporal for the month of July due to PFT Failure.
040616:  Acknowledged understanding of eligibility but not recommended for promotion to Corporal for the month of August due to PFT Failure.
040708:  Medical entry: Primary Care Clinic, MCAS New River, LCDR C_ E. M_, MC, FS:
Reason for appointment: MedBoard.
History of present illness: The patient (Applicant) is a 21 year old male. Pt has been on LIMDU for 8 months for PFS. Symptoms interfere with running, but do not interfere with work related activities. He is not a hindrance to his co-workers. PTs EAS is Aug 2005.
A/P: Patellofemoral syndrome: Found fit for duty, with a limitation of partial PFT (no running) and no forced marches. Pt instruct to contact MEDBOARD at NHL.
Disposition: Released w/o limitations.
Follow up: as needed.
Final Disposition: PT is found FFD w/the following limitations – partial PT only, no running – no forced marches. PTs EAS is < one year. Case discussed w/Ms. W_ Med Board @09:00 040708. PTs dx (PFS) does not interfere w/ MOS/work & is non-surgical.
040802:  Medical entry: Primary Care Clinic , MCAS New River, B_ S. B_, Physician, NH Camp Lejeune:
                  Reason for Appointment: lim du
          History of present illness: The patient (Applicant) is a 21 year old male. Pt. here to f/u for eval of limdu board. PT currently on Limdu board for BILAT PFPS started in Feb 04. PT. states his sx have not improved much and he has lost approx. 20 lbs of weight to help with his rehab. Of Note pt. was offered by LCDR M_ to be released back to duty with no limitations of running. The pt. declined because he thought that he might get admin sep.
         A/P: Patellofemoral syndrome.
          Disposition: Released w/ work/duty limitations. Follow up: as needed. Comments: Sports med consult for re-eval of current status for LIMDU Board.

040806:  Medical entry: Sports Medicine Clinic, Camp Geiger, K_ A. S_, Family Physician/Sports Medicine, NH Camp Lejeune:
         Reason for Appointment: bilateral knee pain. Pt last seen in feb and rec lim du board, has not f/u since then.
         Disposition: released w/ Work/Duty limitations. Comment: Restriction per limited duty board. Follow up: 1 month in the SPMED-CG clinic or sooner if there are problems. Comments: Poor compliance here at Smart Center. I discussed fact that member has not been here in 4 months and should be D/C’d from Smart Center therapy, but states he was not told to f/u. Therefore, will restart Pro 5A QOD x 1-2 weeks then D/C to HEP. Patient must f/u Q month or will D/C from treatment.
040811:  Acknowledged understanding of eligibility but not recommended for promotion to Corporal for the month of September 2004 because of PFT failure.

 040910:  Acknowledged understanding of eligibility but not recommended for promotion to Corporal for the month of October 2004 because of P F T Failure.
040922:  Medical entry: Sports Medicine Clinic, Camp Geiger, K_ A. S_, Family Physician/Sports Medicine, NH Camp Lejeune:
         Reason for Appointment: right and left knee pain.
         History of present illness: The patient (Applicant) is a 21 year old male. Bilateral knee joint pain in the patellofemoral region, worse while walking, while running, while jumping, started gradually, occurs at rest, worse on rising from a seated position, knee joint stiffness, and a grating sensation I the knee but no knee joint swelling, able to straighten the knee, and the knee did not suddenly “lock up.”
         History: No trauma to the knee(s). No dislocation of the patella. Patellofemoral syndrome. No acute medial meniscus tear. No chronic internal derangement of knee.
          Physical findings: General/bilateral: No swelling of the knee. No induration of the knee. No edema of the knee. No erythema of the knee. No warmth of the knee. No deformity of the knee. Patella was normal. Full range of motion of the knees. No anterior drawer sign of the knee was present. A McMurray test of the knee was negative.
         Right knee: Examined. Medial patellar facet was tender on palpation. Medial patellar retinaculum was tender on palpation. Medial joint line was not tender on palpation. Lateral joint line was not tender on palpation. Left knee examined. Medial patellar facet was tender on palpation. Medial patellar retinaculum was tender on palpation. Medial joint line was not tender on palpation. Lateral joint line was not tender on palpation.
          A/P: 1. Patellofemoral syndrome left.
          2 . Patellofemoral syndrome right: At this point, I feel patient has maximized therapy and from a Sports Medicine standpoint, have nothing further to offer. Would recommend SNM continue to perform home exercises (given handout) and start gradual running program in next 2-4 weeks. If not improved after completed 8 month Lim Duty Board, strongly recommend AdSep. Would not place on another 8 month Lim Duty Board due to non-compliance issues.
          Released w/o Limitations.
         Follow up as needed with PCM.
041005:  Medical Officer, Marine Wing Support Squadron 272 , M. R. W_, recommends to Commanding Officer, Marine Wing Support Squadron 272, that the Applicant be administratively separated for convenience of the government for a physical condition, which is not a disability. Medical Officer comments: “The SNM (Applicant) has been evaluated by the Sports Medicine Department and diagnosed with bilateral patellofemoral pain syndrome. This condition occurs with overuse and overloading the knee joint. Repetitive impact is a contributing factor as well as muscular dysfunction. However, no anatomic abnormalities are found within the joint itself. Respectfully recommend Applicant be administratively separated from the United States Marine Corps. As per Sports Medicine ’s recommendation, this Marine’s condition has been unresponsive to extensive medical and physical therapy. This condition prevents SNM from performing his job as a Marine. ”

050114:  Counseling: Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (Recent diagnosis of bilateral patellofemoral pain syndrome, which interferes with duties as a 3534, bulk fueler, by my inability to lift greater than 20 pounds, squatting, stand longer than 30 minutes every one hour, or perform physical training ). N ecessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, and discharge warning issued.
050131:  Counseling: Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (Diagnosis of bilateral patellofemoral pain syndrome, which interferes with duties as a 3534, bulk fueler, by inability to lift greater than 20 pounds, squating, stand longer than 30 minutes every one hour, or perform physical training ). N ecessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, and advised being processed for administrative discharge action.
050211:  Medical Department Representative, Marine Wing Support Squadron 272 , HMC C. F. F_, USN, recommends to Commanding Officer, Marine Wing Support Squadron 272, that the Applicant be administratively separated for convenience of the government for a physical condition, which is not a disability. Medical Officer comments: “The SNM (Applicant) has been evaluated by the Sports Medicine Department and diagnosed with bilateral patellofemoral pain syndrome. This condition occurs with overuse and overloading the knee joint. Repetitive impact is a contributing factor as well as muscular dysfunction. However, no anatomic abnormalities are found within the joint itself. Respectfully recommend Applicant be administratively separated from the United States Marine Corps. As per Sports Medicine’s recommendation, this Marine’s condition has been unresponsive to extensive medical and physical therapy. This condition prevents SNM from performing his job as a Marine.”
050301 :  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of convenience of the government due to a condition not a disability with characterization of service as honorable. The factual basis for this recommendation was medical condition, specifically, left patellofemoral pain syndrome. Despite rigorous physical therapy, condition has not improved, therefore recommending discharge. Applicant informed the least favorable character of service possible was general (under honorable conditions).

050301 :  Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

050304 :  Commanding Officer, Marine Wing Support Squadron 272, recommended to Commanding General, 2d Marine Aircraft Wing , via Commanding Officer, Marine Wing Support Group 27, that Applicant be discharge d by reason of convenience of the government due to a condition not a disability with a characterization of service as honorable . Commanding Officer’s comments*: “This recommendation is based upon Lance Corporal K_’s medical diagnosis by Lieutenant M_ W_, the Squadron Medical Officer, of bilateral patellofemoral pain syndrome. This physical condition has made Lance Corporal K_ unable to perform his duties as a bulk fueler. He has performed well in his duties with his limit a tions and has been an integral part in training other M arines in the bulk fuel MOS. However, all medical attempts to bring him to full duty have failed. Therefore, I feel it would be in the best interest of the Marine Corps to administratively separate him.”
          [*Extracted from Commanding Officer letter, dtd 050203, forwarded as enclosure (10) to R ecommendation for Administrative Separation letter.]

050308:  Commanding Officer, Marine Wing Support Group 27, forwards recommendation, concurring that Applicant be discharged by reason of convenience of the government due to a condition not a disability with a characterization of service as honorable.

050706 :  SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.
050706 :  GCMCA, Commander, 2d Marine Aircraft Wing , directed the Applicant 's discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government due to a condition not a disability.

Service Record Book contains a partial Administrative Discharge package.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20050715 by reason of convenience of the government due to condition not a disability (A) with a service characterization of general (under honorable conditions). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the NDRB discerned no impropriety (B ) in the discharge action but did discern an inequity ( C) in the characterization of the Applicant ’ s service.

When a Marine’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service under honorable conditions. Characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member's military record. In the Applicant ’s case , the Board found that his overall service was honest and faithful. There is no record of misconduct during his service, and no indication that the Applicant’s command considered his inability to overcome his medically documented physical condition to be due to any dereliction or unsatisfactory performance of duty by the Applicant. To the contrary, his command noted his satisfactory performance of duty within his physical limitations and his positive efforts to teach and train less experienced and knowledgeable Marines. In light of the Applicant’s overall service, t he Board determined that there were not significant negative aspects of his conduct or performance of duty that outweighed the positive aspects of his military record

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 additional evidence related to this discharge. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F, effective
01 September 2001 and Present), paragraph 6203, CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT
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 2 2 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

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00319

    Original file (PD2011-00319.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was placed on limited duty (LIMDU) and underwent a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). Right Shoulder. Other Conditions.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00583

    Original file (PD2009-00583.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The MEB found in view of the “osteoarthritis degeneration of the left knee joint” as interfering with duty and forwarded “Bicompartmental Osteoarthritis of the Left Knee, Failed ACL (Anterior Cruciate Ligament) Reconstruction in the Left Knee and Accompanying Anterolateral Rotatory Instability” to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) on the NAVMED 6100/1. Based on the examination results, the examiner opined that the CI had Bicompartmental osteoarthritis of the left knee secondary to the ACL...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00217

    Original file (PD2009-00217.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    Unfitting ConditionsCodeRatingDateConditionCodeRatingExamEffective Degenerative Arthritis, Right Knee w/X-Ray Evidence500310%20011206Post-Operative Degenerative Joint Disease, Right Knee, w/some Narrowing of the Lateral CompartmentDegenerative Arthritis, Left Knee50030%20011206Degenerative Joint Disease, Left Knee5010 (List All PEB Conditions) The VA C&P exam does not mention any complaint of locking. After this evaluation, the VA increased the ratings for each knee to 20%.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00660

    Original file (PD2009-00660.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    In spite of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications, physical therapy, and steroid injections, the CI had continuous periods of limited duty (LIMDU), and was then referred to the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). Painful right knee; and 3. Knee Medial Meniscus Tear and Patellofemoral Plica Syndrome525710%20080915Painful R. Knee-S/P Surgical Repair of R. Knee Medial Meniscal Tear-↓No Additional MEB Entries↓Irritable Bowel Syndrome731930%20080915Sternal Pain s/p Fx...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-01921

    Original file (PD-2012-01921.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The MEB also identified and forwarded history of cellulitis, left knee, chronic bilateral hip pain secondary to bilateral iliotibial band friction syndrome, chronic mechanical low back pain, mild (less than a centimeter) left shorter than right limb length discrepancy, and mild bilateral pes planus conditions.The PEBadjudicated “left patellofemoral pain with secondary chronic left knee pain” as unfitting, rated 10%, with likely application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-00440

    Original file (PD-2012-00440.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    RATING COMPARISON: Service FPEB – Dated 20090417 Condition Code Left Leg Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome Right Leg Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome Left Leg Chronic Compartment Syndrome Right Leg Chronic Compartment Syndrome Mild Exercise Induced Asthma Low Back Bilateral Pes Planus Bilateral Planter Fasciitis Atypical Non‐Cardiac Chest Pain 5099‐5003 Rating 10% 5099‐5003 10% 5099‐5003 5099‐5003 0% 0% Not Unfitting Not Unfitting Not Unfitting Not Unfitting Not Unfitting VA (2 Weeks Pre‐Separation)...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00127

    Original file (PD2013 00127.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The right knee condition, characterized as right knee pain was forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501.No other conditions were submitted by the MEB.The PEB adjudicated patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS), right kneeas unfitting, rated 0%with likely application of the US Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) pain policy.The CI made no appeals and was medically separated. At the MEB narrative summary evaluation on 18 September 2006, 2 months prior to separation, the...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 00953

    Original file (PD 2012 00953.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The PEB adjudicated bilateral anterior knee pain syndrome as unfitting, rated 0% with likely application of the US Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) pain policy and recurrent stress fracture of right tibia as unfitting, rated 0% with application of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The MEB examiner referred to the exam results documented on the MEB DD Form 2808 which are summarized in the chart above.The VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) exam approximately 8 days prior...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00383

    Original file (PD2013 00383.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board reviews medical records and other available evidence to assess the fairness of PEB rating determinations, using the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards, based on ratable severity at the time of separation; and, to review those fitness determinations within its scope (as elaborated above) consistent with performance-based criteria in evidence at separation. The VA also applied an analogous code of 5010-5237, lumbosacral or cervical strain and rated it 10% based on...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00038

    Original file (PD2010-00038.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The MEB exam was eight months prior to separation. Other PEB Conditions . The Board, therefore, has no reasonable basis for recommending any additional unfitting conditions for separation rating.