Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400744
Original file (MD1400744.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20140306
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MARCORSEPMAN

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:         USMCR (DEP)       20000324 - 20000423     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20000424     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20001013      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 20 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 41
MOS: 9900
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):      Rifle

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJP:     SCM:     SPCM:    CC:

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20000912 :       For chronic right knee pain secondary to Degenerative Joint Disease and Patellar Tendonitis, E xisted Prior to Entry

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:           Rehabilitation/Treatment:                 Criminal Records:       
         Personal Documentation:           Community Service:                References:     
         Department of VA letter:                  Other Documentation:    
                  Additional Statements:
         From Applicant:           From/To Representation:           From/To Congress member:        

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual , (MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 August 1995 until 31 August 2001, 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 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.       The Applicant seeks an upgrade to enhance employment opportunities.
2.       The Applicant contends that if he had enlisted at age 18 instead of age 33, he would have made a good Marine and would not have had his joints destroyed to the point of unbearable pain.
3.       The Applicant contends he was rushed through the discharge process and did not understand an Uncharacterized Discharge was as bad as a Dishonorable Discharge.
4.       The Applicant contends he was given an Uncharacterized Discharge because he did not disclose a scar on his knee.

Decision

 Date: 20 1 4 0 814           Location: Washington D.C .         R epresentation : VFW

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .
Discussion

 The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted. In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of g overnment al a ffairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. T he Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances that led to discharge and the discharge process to ensure discharge met the pertinent sta ndards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service included 6105 counseling warning f or chronic right knee pain secondary to Degenerative Joint Disease and Patellar Tendonitis, which existed prior to entry. Based on the Applicant ’s condition , which was not considered a disability, command administratively processed for separation. When notified of a dministrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant rights to consult with a qualified counsel and submit a written statement .

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks an upgrade to enhance employment opportunities. The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment opportunities. Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.

Issue 2: (Nondecisional) The Applicant contends that if he had enlisted at age 18 instead of age 33, he would have made a good Marine and would not have had his joints destroyed to the point of unbearable pain. The fact that the Applicant decided to enlist at age 33 instead of at age 18 has no bearing on the propriety or equity of his discharge.

Issue 3: (Decisional) (Propriety/Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant contends he was rushed through the discharge process and did not understand an Uncharacterized Discharge was as bad as a Dishonorable Discharge. A review of the Applicant’s records shows that he received full due process and was afforded all applicable rights in the discharge proceedings. After competent medical authority diagnosed the Applicant with chronic right knee pain secondary to Degenerative Joint Disease and Patellar Tendonitis, which existed prior to entry, his command determined he was no longer fit to serve and initiated administrative separation proceedings on 12 September 2000. The Applicant was discharged on 13 October 2000. The Applicant received an U ncharacterized characterization of service , which is warranted when separation is initiated while a member is within the first 180 days of continuous active duty except when the characterization of service as Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) is authorized or Honorable is clearly warranted. The Applicant had no misconduct that would rate an UOTHC discharge, and there was no evidence of unusual circumstances involving personal conduct and performance that would merit an Honorable characterization. The Uncharacterized characterization of service does not reflect negative service , unlike a Dishonorable Discharge, which can only be awarded at a General Court-Martial. Since the Appl icant served only 173 days and had no misconduct , Uncharacterized is the most appropriate characterization of service. Relief denied.



Issue 4: (Decisional) (Propriety/Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant contends he was given an Uncharacterized Discharge because he did not disclose a scar on his knee. This is incorrect. The Applicant was not discharged for failing to disclose a scar on his knee. Rather, the Applicant was discharged for a Condition, Not a Disability after competent medical authority diagnosed the Applicant with chronic right knee pain secondary to Degenerative Joint Disease and Patellar Tendonitis, which existed prior to entry, and it was determined that this condition prevented him for fulfilling his duties as a Marine. There was no fraudulent entry into service because the Applicant was not aware of his Degenerative Joint Disease and Patellar Tendonitis during the enlistment process. Further, the Applicant contends he was awarded a Good Conduct Medal. This is also incorrect. To be awarded a Good Conduct Medal, a Marine must serve for three years without misconduct. The Applicant served for 173 days before being properly discharged for a Condition, Not a Disability. The confusion likely arose from Block 18 on his DD Form 214, which lists the start of the three-year counter as 24 April 2000, which corresponds to his first day on active duty. The Applicant received an Uncharacterized characterization of service because he did not serve long enough to warrant an Honorable or General characterization and not because of any misconduct or fraud. Relief denied.

Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain . The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of discharge. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum for additional information.


ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant

 Complaint Procedures : If you believe 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 : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s 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. There are veterans organizations such as the American Legion and the Disable d American Veterans that are willing to provide guidance to former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted their opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 for further review.
Service Benefits: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB. 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 NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. Regulations limit the NDRB’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 BCNR can make changes to reenlistment codes. Additionally, the NDRB 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 is processed subsequently for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended 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 BCNR can grant this type of narrative reason change.

 Automatic Upgrades - There is no law or regulation that provides for an unfavorable discharge to be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct subsequent to leaving naval service.
Post-Service Conduct : The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. Outstanding post-service conduct, 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, is considered during Board reviews. Documentation to support a post-service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s birth certificates (if applicable); character witness statements; documentation of community or church service; certification of non-involvement with civil authorities; evidence of financial stability or letters of good standing from banks, credit card companies, or other financial institutions; attendance at or completion of higher education (official transcripts); and documentation of a drug-free lifestyle. The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

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 NDRB 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 | CY2014 | PD-2014-02466

    Original file (PD-2014-02466.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. Post-Separation)ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Chronic Pain, Left Knee Secondary to Patella Alta & Patellar Tendon Injury5099-500310%Patella Alta Of The Left Knee (claimed as left knee to include degenerative left...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500954

    Original file (MD0500954.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). As the representative, we ask that consideration be given to equitable relief, as this is a matter that involves a determination whether a discharge should be changed under the equity standards, to include any issue upon which the Applicant submits to the Board’s discretionary authority, under SECNAVIST 5420.174D. I thought it would get...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010979

    Original file (20110010979.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    MEB Proceedings he provided in support of his previous application show, on 29 December 1992, an MEB diagnosed him to have chronic tendonitis of the left supraspinatus tendon, left patellar tendon, and left Achilles tendon, and recommended that he be referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). f. A VA Rating Decision, dated 28 September 2004, showing he was granted service-connection for: (1) left shoulder tendonitis rated at 20% from 1 May 2000. The available records show no evidence...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-00344

    Original file (PD-2014-00344.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    SEPARATION DATE: 20060405 Left Knee Condition . By the time of separation, the CI’s condition had improved such that he had a full ROM, albeit that knee pain persisted in spite of treatment.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01906

    Original file (PD2012 01906.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A third and final MEB in October 2002 forwarded the bilateral knee condition, characterized as bilateral patellofemoral syndrome, status post(s/p) left patellar tendon to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) IAW 1850.4E.The MEB also identified and forwarded left shoulder superior labral tear, s/p arthroscopic repair and left hip greater trochanteric bursitis for IPEB adjudication. The IPEB adjudicated bilateral patellofemoral syndrome (PFS) as unfitting, rated 10%, with application...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00635

    Original file (PD2011-00635.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    The PEB adjudicated “osteoarthritis of the left knee” as unfitting, rated 0%, citing criteria of the US Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) pain policy. The rating for the left knee condition, and the PEB’s fitness determination (and potential rating) for the back condition are therefore addressed below. Left Knee Condition .

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD 2013 00518

    Original file (PD 2013 00518.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The CI had a long history of chronic right knee pain and arthritis dating from 1992. The PEB coded the DDD right knee condition as 5003 arthritis, degenerative (hypertrophic or osteoarthritis) and rated at 10%.The VA coded the right knee s/posteotomy proximal tibial plateau, with DJD condition and rated at 5010 arthritis, due to trauma, substantiated by X-ray findings with 5262tibia and fibula, impairment of and rated at 20%, with moderate knee disability, citing, “ This 20percent is...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00988

    Original file (PD2013 00988.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Right knee pain secondary to patellar tendonitis and shrapnel injury was diagnosed.The PT noted the need for ambulation with a cane and knee brace with strength limited by pain. The Board reviewed the MH conditions for “fitness” and possible rating (under VASRD 4.130) if determined to be “unfitting” for military service. Physical Disability Board of Review

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00692

    Original file (PD2009-00692.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    No other conditions were service connected with a compensable rating by the VA within twelve months of separation or contended by the CI. In the matter of any other medical conditions eligible for Board consideration, the Board unanimously agrees that it cannot recommend any findings of unfit for additional rating at separation. 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...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00260

    Original file (PD2011-00260.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    Bilateral Knee Condition . All evidence considered, the Board recommends that each knee be separately adjudicated as unfitting, coded 5299-5259 and rated 10%. In the matter of the bilateral knee condition, the Board by a vote of 2:1 recommends that each joint be separately adjudicated as follows: an unfitting right knee condition coded 5299-5259 and rated 10%; and, an unfitting left knee condition coded 5299-5259 and rated 10%; both IAW VASRD §4.71a.