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

     

ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND99-01048

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 990728, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions and the reason for the discharge be changed to "discharge from RTC, physical disability EPTS".  The applicant requested 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 000420.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain:  ENTRY LEVEL SEPARATION/Erroneous enlistment - enlisted, reenlisted, extended, or inducted in error), authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620280.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1.  I THINK MY DISCHARGE SHOULD BE CHANGE TO GENERAL, UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS FROM ENTRY LEVEL SEPARATION BECAUSE THE DOCTOR AT MEPS WAS AWARE OF MY BROKEN WRIST AND CLEARED ME TO GO TO BASIC TRNG. WHILE AT RTC ORLANDO, I STRESS FRACTURED MY WRIST AND WAS SENT TO MED. HOLD.  AT THE TIME I WAS THEN PROCESSED FOR DISCHARGE.  DUE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES I SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED A DIFFERENT TYPE OF DISCHARGE.

2.  I THINK THE REASON FOR SEPARATION SHOULD BE CHANGED FROM ERRONEOUS ENLISTMENT TO DISCHARGED FROM RECRUIT TRAINING DUE TO PHYSICAL DISABILITY.  THE REASON I AM REQUESTING THE CHANGE IS THE SAME LISTED IN ISSUE 1.

Documentation

In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:

Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):

	Active:    None
	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	911121 - 920806	DISCH- MED DISQUAL
		    USNR (DEP)	921029 - 921109	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  921110		Date of Discharge:  921217

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  01  08
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  22			Years Contracted:  4 (24 months extension)

Education Level:  13			AFQT:  80

Highest Rate:  SR

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMF		Behavior:  NMF		OTA:  NMF

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

ENTRY LEVEL SEPARATION/Erroneous enlistment - enlisted, reenlisted, extended, or inducted in error, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620280.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

920806:  	Applicant discharged from DEP contract due to medical disqualification (ZAB). 

921202:	Medical Board (Branch Med Clinic, Orlando, FL) found applicant unfit for duty due to "Status Post Colles' Fracture Right Wrist" EPTE, waiver not recommended and recommended discharge, enlisted in error.  Applicant accepted findings of the Board and elected not to make a statement.

921207:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with an entry level separation by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment.

921207:	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.  Applicant did not object to the discharge.

921210:	CO, RTC, Orlando, FL directed the applicant's discharge with an entry level separation by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment by reason of Orthopedic pre-service condition.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 921217 with an entry level separation by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment (A).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B).  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).

In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found that the applicant was in the service for 1 month and 8 days.  The applicant received no evaluations from which to characterize his discharge.  A discharge characterization of Entry Level Separation is normally given for those in the service less than 180 days, which is the case for this applicant.  No relief will be granted based on this issue.

In the applicant’s issue 2, the Board does not have the authority to change a reason to a medical reason.  The applicant was properly discharged for erroneous enlistment based on determination by a qualified medical officer that he was unable to perform recruit training requirements or meet enlistment medical standards.  

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 9, effective 15 Aug 91 until 4 Mar 93, Article 3620280, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF DEFECTIVE ENLISTMENTS AND INDUCTIONS - ERRONEOUS ENLISTMENT.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.  

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.

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 obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to:

		DA Military Review Boards Agency
		Management Information and Support Directorate
		Armed Forces Reading Room
		Washington, D.C.  20310-1809

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:

		Naval Council of Personnel Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		Washington Navy Yard
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington, D.C.  20374-5023