Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600103
Original file (ND0600103.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND06-00103

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20051020. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). 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 20060802. 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 failed medical/physical procurement standards .



PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“Recruiter failed to document previous medical records and was well aware of prior surgeries to enlistment, as a direct repercussion of this act MEPS has a fraudulent enlistment noted on my record as well as failed medical procurement standard s was in week 3.5 of basic, then began having throat problems. Went to medical and they had drawn up previous records and the I was sent to process out . S ince this I have written documentation of correction of problem f rom Physician which states pain and maintenance free from the year 200. I am very sorry about this, and what the recruiter failed to mention, but I take full responsibility for this and would like code changed to reenlist.”
Applicant’s Remarks: Taken from the DD Form 293 to the Board:

 “After enlistment was totally unaware f the omitted data left out by recruiter, until examined and previous medical history was ordered and sep e ration began. Since discharge medical problem has been corrected 100% w/ documentation from physician. Would like records reviewed and changed for re-enlistment. Would like also to take 100% responsibility for lack of actions on recruiters behalf. I would like nothing more than the opportunity to re - enlist. (Local recruiting Station Bloomington IL, as well as MEPS Has all documentation of this.)”
Documentation
Only the service and medical records were reviewed. The Applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board’s consideration.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     20030422 – 2003050 7                COG
          Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 2003050 8              Date of Discharge: 20030616
Length of Service (years, months, days):

          Active: 00 01 08
         Inactive: None

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

 Age at Entry: 18

Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 65

 Highest Rate: SR

 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 A pplicable


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 :

030430:  Waiver interview conducted between XO, NRD Chicago and the Applicant for 1 chart “C” offense.
030530:  Medical evaluation : USS TRANQUILITY Medical Clinic, Naval Hospital Great Lakes, IL : 18 yo AD male with history severe heartburn. Started while he was in HS. Treatment with prevacid 30mg QD. Has had several (5) endoscopies where his “esophagus was stretched”. This temporarily fixes the problem. Med history was not disc losed on MEPS because recruiter told him to keep it quiet.
          EXAM: ABD – Soft NT, no mass
         A: Gerd
          -possibly dx with erosive esophagitis
         -esophagene stricture
         P: Prevacid 30 mg pu QD
         Order CMR’s
         Consult IM
         PT educated

 030606:  Medical evaluation: USS TRANQUILITY Medical Clinic, Naval Hospital Great Lakes, IL: Patient with recurrent dysphaga/heartburn despite medicine therapy. S/P endoscopy x 5. Documented scope Aug 02 & Feb 03 with recurrent dilatation
 O: VSS, exam deferred
A: esophageal strictures
 P: E LMS
030606:  Medical care: USS TRANQUILITY Medical Clinic, Naval Hospital Great Lakes, IL: Entry Level Medical Separation.
         1. ELMS for EPTE condition
         2. Diagnosis: Recurrent esophageal stricture
          3. D ay of Training: 3-5
          4. This conditions is not correctable to meet Navy standards
          7. The following tests were performed to confirm the diagnosis: 
         endoscope performed twice (at leas t ) as civilian.


         8. Patient did not have a waiver to come into the service with condition.
         9. Seaman Recruit did not request a waiver.
         11. Patient was not hospitalized.

030610:  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 recurrent esophageal stricture.

030610:  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.
030611:  Commanding Officer, Recruit Training Command, informed Commander, Navy Personnel Command that the Applicant will be discharge with an uncharacterized service by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by recurrent esophageal stricture. Commanding Officer’s comments: “As evidenced by the listed enclosures, an erroneous enlistment has occurred. I directed Personnel Support Activity Detachment, Recruit Training Command, Great Lakes to separate the subject named member from the naval service within 10 working days after receipt of this letter.”

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 20030616 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 the available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (B and C).

The Applicant requests an upgrade of his uncharacterized discharge to general (under honorable conditions). The Board advises the Applicant that 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 2 months in the military to warrant a change of discharge to general.

The Applicant contends that he was unaware of medical data omitted by the recruiter.
The NDRB found that the evidence of record shows that on 20030422, the Applicant was examined and denied having frequent indigestion or heartburn or being treated by a physician in the past five years for other than minor illnesses. On 20030606 competent medical authority diagnosed the Applicant with recurrent esophageal stricture and determined that the condition was not correctable to meet Navy standards. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that the recruiter misled or omitted medical information during the recruitment process. The NDRB found no impropriety or inequity in the discharge. Relief denied.

The applicant states his medical problem has been corrected. The Applicant requests a record review, as he would like the opportunity to reenlist. 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 following is provided for the edification of the Applicant. Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have occurred during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question. The Board discovered no impropriety after a review of Applicant’s case. There is no law or regulation, which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving Naval service. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review. Examples of documentation that should be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any post-service documentation for the Board to consider. Relief denied.

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. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 Aug 2002 until PRESENT, 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 | 2006_Navy | ND0600588

    Original file (ND0600588.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Closing, the only request I make of the board is to allow me a second chance to serve my country, and to prove that I am capable, and can rise up and surpass the challenges I would be presented serving in the United States Armed Forces.” Documentation In addition to the service and medical records, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 1 and 4)Letter from E_ J. W_, MD, B_ Bone and Joint Clinic, dtd July 25, 2005 (2...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501165

    Original file (ND0501165.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND05-01165 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050706. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). On DD Form 2807, Question 12c, the Applicant denied having “Recurrent back pain or any back problem.” While on active duty, the Applicant encountered significant back pain that was ultimately diagnosed by Navy medical professionals as Spina Bifida Occulta.

  • 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 | ND00-00651

    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 | 2006_Navy | ND0600715

    Original file (ND0600715.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). Applicant testified that the above medical condition existed prior to enlistment in the United States Navy. 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 Instruction...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1997_Navy | ND97-01342

    Original file (ND97-01342.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND97-01342 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 970904, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and reason for discharge be changed to “HONORABLE DISCHARGE WITH FULL BENEFITS”. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A, Change 9, effective 22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96), Article 3620280,SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF DEFECTIVE ENLISTMENT AND INDUCTIONS – ERRONEOUS ENLISTMENT, states:1. A review...

  • 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 | 2005_Navy | ND0500837

    Original file (ND0500837.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    010208: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service general (under honorable conditions) by reason of defective enlistment and induction due erroneous enlistment as evidenced by seizure disorder.010208: Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with qualified counsel, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00106

    Original file (ND01-00106.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-SN, USN Docket No. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. I never had problems with my knee before training.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501131

    Original file (ND0501131.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests that her characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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...