Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900225
Original file (ND0900225.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-SR, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20081110
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge: FAILED MEDICAL/PHYSICAL PROCUREMENT STANDARDS
Authority for Discharge :          M ILPERSMAN 1910-130 ( DEFECTIVE ENLISTMENTS AND INDUCTIONS - ERRONEOUS ENLISTMENT )

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: US N R (DEP)      20070924 - 20080212     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20080213     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20080401      Highest Rank/Rate: SR
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 19 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 93
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: NFIR         Behavior: NFIR   OTA: NFIR

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      NDSM

Periods of UA /C ONF : NJP : S CM : SPCM: C C :

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 Representat ion :    From Congress m ember :

Oth er Documentation :



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Reenlist ment opportunity .
2. Discharge based on erroneous Navy medical evaluation.

Decision

Date : 20 0 9 0223             Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall FAILED MEDICAL/PHYSICAL PROCUREMENT STANDARDS .
Discussion

 : 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 , regarding . Note: An unfavorable "RE" code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment. The Board recommends the Applicant contact a local military recruiter to discuss the details and requirements to reenlist into military service.
: ( ) . The Applicant contends his heart is healthy and the medical evaluation conducted at the Navy Recruit Training Command, Great Lakes, was erroneous. 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. On 17 May 2008, the Applicant was diagnosed with diastolic dysfunction (heart abnormality) and subsequently discharged because this medical condition is not correctable to meet Navy standards.

While in recruit training, the Applicant answered “yes” to chest pain on his Physical Activity Risk Factor Questionnaire (PARFQ) ; the Applicant was found to have an irregular heart beat five years earlier, but was checked and found healthy. He was seen at a military clinic on 19 February 2008 for chest pain however, n o problems were found, but the Applicant was given light duty. Further evaluation of the member’s record indicated t he Applicant’s sister died at age 18 of cardiomyopathy ; a genetic heart condition . On 29 February 2008, the Applicant was seen at the clinic again and did not have any chest pains at the time but did admit to previously having chest pains lasting one minute and relieved by deep breathing. On 4 March 2008, th e Applicant was screened by the Cardiology Clinic 200H and found to have an abnormal electrocardiogram ( EKG ) , but a normal chest . The Applicant reported having left chest heaviness for two weeks ( then in his third week of recruit training) lasting 2-3 se conds and it was not exertion- related. He also reported occasional abnormal heartbeats while lying down to sleep at night. The physician reported the Applicant’s heart is normal in size and configuration (based on x-rays) and pulmonary vasculature is within normal limits. The physician was still very unclear of the nature of the Applicant’s sister’s cardiomyopathy and why his EKG is so abnormal in light of an unremarkable [normal] echo. The physician did note the Applicant had no regular exercise whatsoever before entry and was currently on light duty. Later on 4 March 2008 , the Applicant had a follow-up exam and was continued on limited duty. On 10 March 2008, the Applicant performed a stress test at the Cardiology Clinic and the doctor ’ s impression was that it represented a “Normal Nuclear Cardiac Stress Test.” The physicians, however , recommended separation based on significant diastolic dysfunction, family history, poor exercise tolerance, and inability to increase blood pressure with exercise, and echo findings. On 11 March 2008, the clinic was waiting for cardiology ’s report and the Applicant was advised to obtain records of cardiomyopathy screening by his civilian doctor. On 13 March 2008, the Applicant came in for a follow-up and was continued on limited duty and the Navy cardiologist was waiting to review civilian medical records. The Board could not determine if the Navy cardiologist was able to review the Applicant’s civilian medical records and presu mes regularity of governmental affairs . On 17 March 2008, the Navy diagnosed the Applicant of diastolic dysfunction (heart abnormality) and subsequently discharge d the Applicant.

In summary , the Applicant was found to have an irregular heartbeat by his civilian doctors in 2003 but his heart was considered healthy. The Applicant ’s sister did have restrictive cardiomyopathy, but did not die from it . Rather, the Applicant states her

death was from “her highly suppressed immune system being compromised” from an illness “(possibly with walking pneumonia).” Her death certificate indicates immediate cause of death was congestive heart failure and conditions leading to the cause were acute cellular rejection [she had a heart transplant], cardiac arrhythmia, and hypotension. The death certificate indicated no autopsy was performed, but the Applicant states in his email 25 April 2006 to the military doctor his sister’s heart was explanted and she was found to have a rarer abnormality called mitochondrial myopathy. Based on his sister’s condition, Navy medical personnel correctly identified a family history of heart disease. During the first few weeks of recr uit training, the Applicant admit ted to having left chest heaviness at night and indicated chest pains on his PARFQ, which resulted in further medical screening. The Applicant ha d an abnormal EKG, but a normal echo and found to have a normal heart size and configuration. During the medical screenings, the Applicant was found to have no regular physical exercise program prior to entering and therefore was not physically prepared for recruit training. Although t he Applicant provided post-service medical documentation which was consistent with his pre-service medical evaluations , the Board finds it does no t mitigate the diagnosis by the military cardiologist at the medical clinic in Great Lakes. 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


Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, 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 .


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, provi ded 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 grante d 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.
Employmen t / 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

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00042

    Original file (PD2009-00042.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Air Force Informal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) found her unfit for continued service and she was separated with a 10% disability rating for 7099-7020 Cardiac septal aneurysm and mild mitral valve regurgitation (Ejection fraction 60-65%) using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Ratings Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Air Force and Department of Defense regulations. Given the VA’s reasonable 30% rating rationale of diminished symptom free exertion (METs), interplay between CI’s...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01149

    Original file (PD-2014-01149.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Informal PEB adjudicated “exertional chest pain” as unfitting, rated 10% with likely application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the VASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. The Board gives consideration to VA evidence, particularly within 12 months of separation, but only to...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00979

    Original file (PD2010-00979.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    BAV and chest pain (exertion related) were the only conditions on the MEB’s submission to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). The CI made no appeals and was medically separated with a 10% disability rating. I have reviewed the subject case pursuant to reference (a) and, for the reasons set forth in reference (b), approve the recommendation of the Physical Disability Board of Review Mr. XXXX’s records not be corrected to reflect a change in either his characterization of separation or in...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00383

    Original file (PD2009-00383.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    Despite normal tests, the CI continued to have symptoms and the Cardiologist opined his chest pain and palpitations were not cardiac conditions. The CI’s symptoms of chest pain and palpitations did not result from a cardiac condition. No VASRD code for non-cardiac chest pain and palpitations exists and the CI’s disability must be rated analogously.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00277

    Original file (PD2011-00277.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Chronic Pericarditis with Exercise Limiting Chest Pain Secondary to Acute Viral Myopericarditis Chronic Serous Pericarditis70020%Post-viral Cardiomyopathy w/Recurring Atrial Fibrillation7099-702010%*20050802History of Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation Medically ControlledNot Unfitting↓No Additional MEB/PEB Entries↓PTSD941130%**STR0% x 0/Not Service Connected x 2 Combined: 0%Combined: 40%*** *Post-viral Cardiomyopathy w/Recurring Atrial Fibrillation...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9502908

    Original file (9502908.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Medical Consultant stated that review of medical records does not disclose any evidence to support correction of records from retirement for length of service to disability retirement. However, the Air Force failed to do appropriate testing to show the severity of the problem. The Medical Consultant indicated that had a pacemaker been implanted while applicant was on active duty, he would not have been qualified for worldwide duty.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1995-02908

    Original file (BC-1995-02908.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Medical Consultant stated that review of medical records does not disclose any evidence to support correction of records from retirement for length of service to disability retirement. However, the Air Force failed to do appropriate testing to show the severity of the problem. The Medical Consultant indicated that had a pacemaker been implanted while applicant was on active duty, he would not have been qualified for worldwide duty.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070001004C071108

    Original file (20070001004C071108.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant was rated under the Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) codes 7099 and 7020 and granted a 10% disability rating recommending him for separation with severance pay. The applicant submitted a copy of his VA Rating Decision; dated 23 October 2006 that shows he received a 50 percent service-connected disability rating for sleep apnea with a C-PAP machine and a 30 percent- service connected disability rating for his heart condition with...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-00769

    Original file (PD-2014-00769.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board gives consideration to VA evidence, particularly within 12 months of separation, but only to the extent that it reasonably reflects the severity of the disability at the time of separation. Post-Separation)ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Generalized Anxiety D/O940010%Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood944010%20080515Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy with Mitral Regurgitation7020----Hypertrophic Subaortic Stenosis with Mitral...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00191

    Original file (PD2013 00191.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    It, and any other conditions or contention not requested in this application, or otherwise outside the Board’s defined scope of review, remain eligible for future consideration by the Board for Correction of Military Records.In accordance with DoDI 6040.44, the Board’s authority is limited to making recommendations on correcting disability determinations. Under the authority of Title 10, United States Code, section 1554(a), I approve the enclosed recommendation of the Department of Defense...