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

 ex-Pvt, USMCR
Docket No. MD02-00233

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020109, requested that the reason for the discharge be changed to injury.  The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020731.  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 and narrative reason 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, as submitted

1.  I wish to dispute the narrative reason for separation, DD214, Item 28.  this is a false statement.  "Chronic ankle pain" is not a true statement as my records will indicate.  Defective Enlistment and Induction - Erroneous is not true.  I did not withhold any physical problems upon my enlistment.  I suffered stress fractures while attending boot camp.  I am requesting that his verbage be changed to something less damaging based on the documents provided.

This verbage portrays me as a dishonest person, which I am not.  This verbage has exempted me from entering the U.S. Air Force or any Law Enforcement Agencies.

I would appreciate your help in this matter.  Thank you

Documentation

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

Examination from Mid South Orthopaedics dated January 22, 1999 (2 copies)
Radiologist report dated January 18, 1999 (2 copies)
Radiologist report dated January 18, 1999 (2 copies)
Copy of Mid South Orthopaedics medical release day August 8, 2001
Copy of DD Form 214
Chronological record of medical care from applicant's military medical record
Copy of enlistment report of medical history from applicant's service record
Copy of enlistment report of medical exam from applicant's service record
Final discharge information/counseling form dated January 6, 1999 (2 copies)
Chronological record of medical care dated January 6, 1999 (2 pages)
Applicant's statement dated May 22, 2002
Report of Medical Examination dated February 8, 2002
Report of Medical History dated February 8, 2002
Medical Prescreen of Medical History Report dated July 27, 2001
Medical Record/Consultation Sheet dated March 4, 2002
Mid South Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine Center dated August 8, 2001 (2 copies)
Medical Record/Chronological Record of Medical Care dated December 1999 thru February 8, 2002
Branch Medical Clinic, Marine Recruit Depot, San Diego, CA dated January 6, 1999
Chronological Record of Medical Care dated 1999
Notification and Acknowledgement dated January 8, 1999
Letter from Arkansas Air National Guard dated December 10, 2001

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:  980930		Date of Discharge:  990113

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  02  04
	Inactive:  00  01  11  

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  6

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  44

Highest Rank:  Pvt

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  NMA			Conduct:  NMA

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.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

981110:	Applicant ordered to active duty.

990106:	Medical evaluation by Branch Medical Clinic:

	AXIS I: Chronic right ankle pain, EPTE.

990106:	Commanding officer recommended discharge with an entry level separation (uncharacterized) by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous entry.  The factual basis for this recommendation was due to a pre-service medical condition of Chronic Right Ankle pain.

990108:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with an entry level separation (uncharacterized) by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous entry.

990108:	Applicant advised of 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.

990111:	GCMCA [Commanding General, Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego, CA] directed the applicant's discharge with an entry level separation (uncharacterized) by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous entry into the U.S. Marine Corps.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 990113 with an entry level separation (uncharacterized) by reason of defective enlistment and induction 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).

Issue 1.  The Board does not consider the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s stated condition and implied incorrect diagnosis to be of sufficient nature to warrant a change to his characterization of service.   The Board found that the applicant’s chronic right ankle pain prevented him from completing his enlistment.  The records indicate the applicant originally hurt his ankle prior to his commencement of active duty, and that the Marine Corps would not have accepted the applicant for enlistment had they known the relevant facts concerning his injury.  No other narrative reason more clearly describes the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s processing for administrative separation.  Furthermore, the applicant’s enlistment is not considered fraudulent.  Relief denied.

The applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or injustice occurred during the applicant’s enlistment.  Additionally, 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 the service.  The applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge. Legal representation at a personal appearance hearing is highly recommended but not required

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 Aug 95 until present, 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