Docket No: 5737-20
Ref: Signature Date                          
               
 
Dear 
 
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Section 1552 of Title 10, United States Code.  After careful and conscientious consideration of relevant portions of your naval record and your application, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.  Consequently, your application has been denied.     
 
Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and consider your application on its merits. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 January 2021.  The names and votes of the panel members will be furnished upon request.  Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of the Board.  Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, to include the 25 July 2018 guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness regarding equity, injustice or clemency determinations (Wilkie Memo).    
  
You enlisted in the Navy Reserve and began a period of active duty on 13 February 1989.  On 14 February 1989, a Medical Report diagnosed you with Osgood-Schlatter’s Disease, right knee, that existed prior to your entry (EPTE) onto active duty, Fracture, Tibial Tubercle, right knee, EPTE.  The medical board determined that you did not meet the minimum physical standards for enlistment at the time of your induction.  You had not appeared before a medical board previously, and you revealed you injured your right knee while playing baseball two months prior to entry on active duty.  The report further states that a B.B. shot was removed from your right foot, and that you did not mention these conditions at the time of your enlistment.  You were informed of the contents of the Boards report and did not desire to submit a statement in rebuttal.  On 15 March 1989, you were notified of administrative discharge action by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment.  On 17 March 1989, the commanding officer of the Recruiting Command forwarded your case to Personnel Support Detachment directing that you be discharged from the Navy due to a defective enlistment.  On 24 March 1989, you signed an Administrative Remarks (Page 13) entry regarding your entry-level separation (ELS) by reason of erroneous enlistment, eligible for reenlistment except for disqualifying factor. Additionally, you were informed of the Health Care Insurance coverage for members of the Armed Forces being separated from active duty. On 24 March 1989, you received an uncharacterized ELS due to an erroneous enlistment-enlisted in error. 
  
The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case in accordance with the Wilkie Memo.  These included, but were not limited to, your contention that you served two years of active service, and you are only getting credit for one month.  Your Certificate of Release of Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) shows that served from 13 February to 24 March 1989.  Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief.  Specifically, the Board determined that your discharge was proper based on the circumstances of your case, being enlisted in error due to a condition that existed prior to your service, and the fact that your record clearly documents your time in service outweighed these mitigating factors.  Accordingly, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief.   
  
You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new matters, which will require you to complete and submit a new DD Form 149.  New matters are those not previously presented to or considered by the Board.  In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.  Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.   
 
Sincerely,