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

ex-Pvt, USMCR
Docket No. MD01-00123

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 001102, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  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 010406.  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: UNCHARACTERIZED/ERRONEOUS ENTRY, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6204.2.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

Prior to the documentary discharge review, the applicant introduced no issues as block 8 on the DD Form 293 is blank. 

Documentation

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

Ltr to Applicant from Marine Corps Hdqtrs, Pers Mgmt Supp Br dtd Jun 29, 2000
Copy of DD Form 214 (2 copies)
Applicant's ltr to the Board dtd 20 Oct 2000
Applicant's ltr to Hdqtrs, Marine Corps dtd Jun 9, 2000
Ltr to Applicant from Marine Corps Hdqtrs, Pers Mgmt Supp Br dtd Apr 3, 2000
Applicant's ltr to NPRC, St Louis, MO dtd Mar 6, 2000

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  990113		Date of Discharge:  990623

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  00  22
	Inactive:  00  04  18

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  13			AFQT:  42

Highest Rank:  Pvt

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  NMF			Conduct:  NMF

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNCHARACTERIZED/ERRONEOUS ENTRY, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6204.2.  [Administratively corrected.]

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

990602:	Commenced recruit training.

990608:	Branch Med Clinic, MCRD, 	San Diego, CA:  19 year old male to sick call for follow-up Rhabdomyolysis/hematuria.  Had UA ordered today.  Recruit stated that he's getting better.  Abdominal muscle is getting better.  Dropped to MRP for continuous follow-up on lab work every 2 days for continuous monitoring of abnormal lab.
	Assessment:  Hematuria/mild Rhabdomyolysis.
	Plan:  Return to counseling every 2 days for UA.  Might be considered to ELS until lab results to normal.

990612:	Branch Med Clinic, MCRD, 	San Diego, CA:  19 years male received to ACA for fainting episodes.  Pt denies shortness of breath, no vomiting, no stomach pains, has dizziness and light headaches.

990613:	Branch Med Clinic, MCRD, 	San Diego, CA:  21 year ol was told to come to sick call by DI for light headedness.  Pt insists he's not feeling much different than he did yesterday.  Had mild "stuffy nose, ST and light headedness.  Also relates "I just want to go home to mom". 
	Assessment:  Rhabdomyolysis, resolving.

000615:	Branch Med Clinic, MCRD, 	San Diego, CA:  19 year old for follow-up labs. 
	A/P:  Lyte stable -post mild Rhabdomyolysis.  Recruit does not meet with enlistment standards.  Fit for separation.

000615:	Branch Med Clinic, MCRD, 	San Diego, CA:  Chief compliant - Hematuria.
	Diagnosis:  Rhabdomyolysis.
	Recommendation:  Refer for admin entry level separation, mbr does not meet minimum standards for enlistment, member has not incurred injury and/or has not aggravated pre-existing defects by active military service, mbr's condition is considered "not physically qualified" and mbr's condition likely to change, if retained.

990618:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for entry level separation by reason of defective enlistment - erroneous enlistment due to pre-service medical condition - Rhabdomyolysis.

990618:	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.

990618:	Commanding officer recommended entry level separation due erroneous enlistment due to not meeting the physical standard - diagnosis of Rhabdomyolysis. 

990622:	GCMCA [CG, MCRD, San Diego, CA] directed the applicant's uncharacterized discharge by reason of defective enlistment and induction - erroneous due to Rhabdomyolysis. 

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 990623 with an uncharacterized (entry level separation) due to erroneous entry (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 applicant requested a change in the characterization of his discharge “…from uncharacterized to Honorable…in order that I may be able to enter another branch of the Arm (sic) Forces”.  In reviewing the case, the Board found the applicant completed 22 days of active service before his discharge for a diagnosis of Rhabdomyolysis/Hematuria.  This period of active service falls short of the 180 days required by the MARCORSEPMAN to qualify for a characterization of service.  The uncharacterized nature of the applicant’s discharge is not adverse or punitive.  This description exists to describe the service of individuals separated before they demonstrate the character of their service, honorable or otherwise.  As the applicant did not complete the minimum length of service to make him eligible for honorable characterization, due to his diagnosis, relief is denied.

The following is provided for the applicant’s edification.  Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reentry into the naval service or any other of the Armed Forces.  The NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy or Marine Corps.  Reenlistment policy is promulgated by the Commandant, United States Marine Corps, Code MMEA, 3280 Russell Road, Quantico, VA 22134.  A request for a waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.  Relief, on this basis is therefore, denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual,(MCO P1900.16E, effective 950818), paragraph 6204, DEFECTIVE ENLISTMENT AND INDUCTION

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 view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “afls14.jag.af.mil”.  

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
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023