Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900043
Original file (ND0900043.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-SN, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20081006
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to:
                  Narrative Reason change to: MEDICAL DISCHARGE

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive: USNR (DEP)     20051022 - 20060430     Active: 

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 20060501      Age at Enlistment:
Period of Enlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20060822       Highest Rank/Rate: SN
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 22 D ay(s)
Education Level:         AFQT: 61
Evaluation Marks:        Performance: NFIR         Behavior: NFIR    OTA: NFIR

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):    

Periods of UA/CONF:

NJP: SCM: SPCM: CC: Retention Warning Counseling:

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

 Related to Military Service:     
DD 214:         Service/Medical Record:                  Other Records:

Related to Post-Service Period:  
         Employment:                        Finances:                          Education/Training:     
         Health/Medical Records:           Substance Abuse:                           Criminal Records:       
         Family/Personal Status:           Community Service:                References:              
Additional Statements:
From Applicant:         From Representation:     From Congress member:

Other Documentation:

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 11, effective 20 June 2005 until Present, Article 1910-130, 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 II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs , Part V, Para 502, Propriety and Para 503, Equity .


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

Applicant’s Issues
1. Requesting uncharacterized discharge to be changed to medical discharge.
2. Discharge unfairly documented.

Decision

Date: 20090226            Location: Washington D.C.        R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall ERRONEOUS ENTRY - OTHER.
Discussion

 : The Applicant is seeking to have her narrative reason changed to reflect “Medical Discharge.” either which the Board cannot form the basis of relief for the Applicant, or the Board does not have the authority to grant the relief for which the Applicant petitioned. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically the paragraph concerning Medical Conditions and Misconduct for additional information regarding .

: ( ) . The Applicant contends her discharge was unfairly documented and she was healthy at the time she enlisted in the Navy. In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support her issues.

The evidence of record indicates the Applicant began active duty on 01 May 2006. On 08 May 2006, while in boot camp, the Applicant had a pap smear done which unfortunately was abnormal. On 19 May 2006, she underwent an endometrial biopsy and was diagnosed with A denocarcinoma. The Applicant was subsequently separated due to the condition not being correctable to meet Navy standards, as noted in the commanding officer’s letter of 15 August 2006. Based on the foregoing evidence, the Board determined there was sufficient evidence to separate the Applicant due to an erroneous entry. Sailors may be separated for erroneous enlistment if relevant disqualifying facts would have prevented the enlistment had they been known at the time of enlistment . Receiving an e rroneous entry narrative reason does not place or indicate any blame on the Applicant ’s behalf .

The Applicant’s statement she was healthy when she enlisted into the Navy as evidenced by a pap smear done in May 2005, a year earlier, is contradicted by the medical records which indicate she had an abnormal pap smear 8 May 2006 (within 7 days of commencing active duty). Additionally, she had an endometrial biopsy on 19 May 2006 which was suggestive of Grade I Adenocarcinoma. Based on the foregoing, the NDRB determined the Applicant had a preexisting medical condition that prevented her from serving in the military and had her true medical condition been known, it would have disqualified her from enlisting in the military. There was nothing in the Applicant’s record, nor did she present anything, which supported her claim the discharge was unfairly documented.

B y regulation, members notified of intended recommendation for discharge within the first 180 days of continuous active duty service are eligible for an “Uncharacterized” or entry-level separation characterization of service. Unless there were unusual circumstances regarding a service member’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 her less than 4 months in the military prior to notification of separation to warrant a change of discharge to “Honorable ” . Therefore the Board found her “Uncharacterized” characterization appropriate.




The Applicant should be aware that, with respect to non-service-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.

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found


ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant

 Complaint Procedures : 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 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Instruction to the Joint Service Review Activity, OUSD (P&R) PI-LP, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Instruction 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 Instruction 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “ http://Boards.law.af.mil . ”

Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the 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. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted his opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100 for further review.

 Service Benefits: The 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.
Employment/Educational Opportunities : 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 of the propriety and equity of the discharge.

 Reenlistment/RE-code: Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, the NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code. Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. 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.
Medical Conditions and Misconduct : DoD disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation. Appropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons. Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board, and subsequently is processed for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended. The Physical Evaluation Board case remains in suspense pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings. If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct or for any basis wherein an Other Than Honorable Discharge is authorized, the medical board report is filed in the member’s terminated health record. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or other medical related reasons. Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records can grant this type of narrative reason change.

 Automatic Upgrades - 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 may be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.
Issues Concerning Bad-Conduct Discharges (BCD ) – Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts, issues relating to the Applicant’s innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a special court-martial, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency. Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed. The NDRB does not have the jurisdictional authority to review a discharge or dismissal resulting from a general court-martial.

Board Membership: 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 | BCNR | CY2002 | 08619-01

    Original file (08619-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    In addition, she may need further treatment and The author of the enclosure did not In her opinion, it would be reasonable that Petitioner be followed in the VA system, “denied discharge ” from the Navy based on her Pap smear In her ” CONCLUSION: (2), the Board concludes that had the results of Petitioner Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record and notwithstanding the comments contained in enclosure Pap smear been available prior to her release from active duty, her...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070007362

    Original file (20070007362.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant states "I did not refuse to get a Pap smear. I was given permission by the local military doctor to get a civilian pap smear, but my commander refused to allow me to do that." The military medical physician and the CSM discussed the applicant's continued refusal to take the Pap smear and the CSM addressed dealing with the matter at the unit.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005619

    Original file (20090005619.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    She states she was more than willing to take another Pap smear after the administrative board was completed because she had been medically and educationally counseled as to what a Pap smear was and what it entailed. A Minority Report from a member of the board, dated 23 March 2007, addressed to the separation authority stated that based on the facts and evidence in the case the applicant should not be separated. The discharge authority stated that he determined the applicant did not...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01336

    Original file (BC-2004-01336.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 17 February 2004, an entry on the applicant’s health record indicates in February 2003, the applicant had an abnormal PAP which was followed by a colposcopy and cryosurgery in October 2003. The Medical Consultant indicates that the applicant concealed a medical condition that is disqualifying for enlistment at the time of entry that was discovered approximately one week after entering active duty. We believe the applicant’s explanation and supporting statement from her mother of the...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-00814

    Original file (PD-2012-00814.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB adjudicated the fibromyalgia condition, which included atypical chest pain, as unfitting, rated 20% with application of the Veteran’s Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). Fibromyalgia Condition. A 40% rating, the maximum rating available under this code, is warranted when fibromyalgia is constant, or nearly so, and refractory to therapy.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075973C070403

    Original file (2002075973C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Information contained in files maintained by the Army Review Boards Agency indicates that the Board received part of this same application, including the Department of Defense Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record Under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552) and her self-authored statement (both of which are dated 14 March 2002), on 21 March 2002. One of her sessions, on 30 September 1993, may have occurred on a day when the applicant was in an active duty...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018477

    Original file (20080018477.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant's records contain a letter, dated 15 February 1983, from the applicant's spouse's medical doctor. On 25 February 1983, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service and directed that an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate be issued and that the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade under the provisions of paragraph 8-11, Army...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500656

    Original file (ND0500656.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 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, C, and D).The Applicant infers that she was denied due process during her administrative discharge from the Navy. Additionally, in response to the medical issues raised by the Applicant, the Board reviewed the Applicant's health records and found that the Applicant was...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100716

    Original file (MD1100716.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB determined that the diagnosis and separation for Personality Disorder was proper.Marine Corps regulations state the characterization of service for a Marine separated for Personality Disorder is either Honorable or General (Under Honorable Conditions) as determined by the Marine’s service record. The Applicant could have provided documentation as detailed in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum with the recognition that completion of these items alone does not...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800231

    Original file (ND0800231.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the available evidence to include the Applicant’s summary of service, medical and service record entries, discharge process and evidence submitted by the Applicant the Board found the discharge proper and equitable.For the information of the Applicant, 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. ” Additional Reviews :...