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

  ex-Pvt, USMC
Docket No. MD03-00983

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030515.  The Applicant requests the reason for the discharge be changed to Entry level medical.  The Applicant requests 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 20040408.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB.  The Board’s vote was four to one that the narrative reason of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain:  UNCHARACTERIZED/FRAUDULENT ENTRY INTO MILITARY SERVICE, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6204.3.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “The first issue document #1, Form DD 214 fraudulent entry into military service.  I will try to show why this should be medical. I went to Knoxville, TN. On Feb. 20, 2001 for medical Exam. By the doctors at Meps. As Document #2 will show on page 1 that I checked no to section 11 Line 22 Heart trouble or murmur when I should have checked yes.  I did this because I read section 11 as have you now, not the way it is have you ever had or have you now. I think the reason for this error is that I had a hurt murmur when I was young but by the time I was 11 yrs old the Dr. said I had out grown it and didn’t have it anymore, so I never gave it another thought.
Then when the MEPS Dr. did it’s exam he didn’t find anything which Document No. 3 shows in item No. 29 of his report, so he found nothing to jar my memory about my heart murmur at that time. I have also enclosed the Dr. notes from the Greene Co. Health Dept. Greeneville, TN.  These notes go back from Feb. 27 2002 to June 18, 1987.  You will find in these notes that there is no mention of any kind of heart trouble in all those notes, 6 pages.  I have also enclosed Document #5 Laboratory Findings, test that shows on Line 20 of page one that my blood pressure was fine from 1-26-02 to 1-9-03.  So as you can see there was nothing from 1987 to Feb. 28, 2001 to remind me of the fact that I had a heart murmur.  I had no trouble doing anything that I wanted to do.  Like play football, baseball, and basketball, ride a bike, go swimming, and never had any shortness of breath more than any of the other kids.  So there was nothing to make me have any reason to think about or remember that when I was very young that a Dr. told my father that I had a Heart murmur.  That is why I said I didn’t lie I just didn’t think about it. The second issues are what took place after I got to Parris Island, on or about 11-29-01.  One of the NCO asked at what he called the Moment of truth If there was anything that I had forgot to tell them at Meps, that there would not be any repercussions If I revealed anything at this time that it would set the record right.  I thought for a moment and I remembered that I had a Heart Murmur when I was young.  I informed him of this, he had me fill out and signed a voluntary medical statement, which I did, it is in my service records along with all documents pertaining to this issues I also filled out a rights and knowledgement statement I did this on 11-29-01.
On Dec. 5, 2001 I was sent to Low Country Medical Group where they did a Echocardiograph the report for this is in my service records also.  Document no. 6 page 1 is a short report from D_ C_ B_, which showed that I could be processed for separation, this report is dated Dec 6, 01, page 2 is from the medical Dispositions Offer, Branch Medical Clinic to the Recruit Liaison section, It states in my words that I had a Heart murmur with aortic regeratation be for my enlistment and it was disqualifying for active duty. I disagree with this, there is no medical evidence to back up this claim, on the other hand all prior medical evidence backs up my claim that since 1990 or sooner I had no signed of a heart murmur and never was diagnosed aortic regurgitation until 12-5-01 when Low Country Medical Group did a echocardiograph, this is one reason why I think my DD 214 should be changed from, Fraudulent Entry into Military Service, to medical released or Discharge form active duty.
The third issues will rebut the findings of Low Country Medical Group Document #7 has 4 pages, the first page problem list which is going on the report from low country it is dated 1-16-02, page 2 EKG done on 1-16-02 at Greene County Health.  They told me it was normal, page 3 & 4 is a lab report from Greene County Health Center.  The Dr. there said it showed no problems that would affect my heart. Document #8 is a radiology report from Tacoma Adventist Hospital to, Dr. B_ S_, dated 1-23-02.  Dr. S_ is at the Greene County Health Dept. Document No. 9 is a letter to B_ S_ at the Greene County Health Dept. from H_ D_ T_ M.D. F.A.C.C. of cardiovascular associates, P.C. Kingsport, TN. dated 2/18/02. This letter is to thank her for sending me to him, and he also question the accuracy of Echocardiographically, that was done at Low Country, he had it on his office, I had requested a copy of the Echocardiogram done at Low Country Medical Group on 1-28-02 and received on 2-7-02 and took it to Dr. T_ office on 2-8-92, This gave him 10 days go over it before he saw me on 2-18-02. Document No. 10 is a 2 page, It is his report on his examination of me, by Dr. T_ on 2-18-02 in Paragraph 2 under present problems he reviews what the Marines physician’s said in his report, he then goes on to Physical examination, of Mr. H_ (Applicant) that Dr. T_’s did himself.  He then moves down to 3 test that had been done.  The first was EKG that was done at Dr. T_’s office on 2-10-02.  The second is a multiple chemistry analysis that was done at Greene County Health Dept. on 1-17-02 copy of same is Document #7 page 3 & 4 and the third one's a chest x-Ray done 1-23-02 at Tacoma Adventist Hospital, This report is Document #8, They where all within normal limits. Document No. 11, is a report dated 3-8-02 from Dr. T_ to J_ H_ (Applicant), It is a report on the 3-6-2 Echo Doppler Study. The entire report should be read with attention to the last paragraph, which disputes the finding of the Marine Corps.  That I had a service Heart problem, and had lied about it to get into the Marines.  Document No. 12 Is the echocardiogram done by A_ J_ M.D. F.A.C.C. at cardiovascular associates, Kingsport, TN. Dr. T_’s officer. Page 2 of this Document is the Echocardiograph worksheet for 3-6-02.  Document No 13 has 2 pages, it is a report from Dr. T_ to B_ S_, M.D. at Greene Country Health Dept. dated 3-8-02.  This is his report to her on Echo/Doppler study he did on 3-6-02 on me.  Both pages should be reviewed. The fourth and last issue in my reason for wanting my release for this is because I want to try to get into the U.S. Air Force and they will not consider my entry as long as my DD 214 says fraudulent entry.  If It said Medical I could apply for a waiver to get in, to the Air Force, and as document’s No 11, No. 12, and No. 13 show that have at this time a Mild Heart murmur, there would be no reason for not applying for a waiver and being medically cleared to enter the Air Force. In further support of this document #14 2 pages, dated 4-14-2003 I would like the who letter read, but I will point to no. 1 under impression plan on page 2 the last two lines, Dr. B_ states there is no reason why the patient should be restricted from active military service based on my current exam. I hope that I have convinced you that I did not intend to defraud the military, that it was an oversight on my part, not checking yes for Heart Murmur

Thank you for reviewing my discharge.”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214
Report of medical history February 28, 2001 Knoxville (2 pages)
Report of medical examination USMC MEPS Knoxville February 28, 2001
Doctor notes from Green County Health Department from June 18, 1987 to February 27, 2002 (6 pages)
Laboratory Findings, test, blood pressure from December 28, 1990 to January 9, 2003 (2 pages)
Personal data, provider and medical dispositions officer report (2 pages)
Patient record of January 16, 2002 from Greene County Health Department (4 pages)
Radiology report from Tacoma Adventist Hospital, dated January 23, 2002
Letter of February 18, 2002 from Dr. H_ D_ T_ to Dr. B_ S_, Greene County Health Dept.
Letter to Applicant from Dr. T_ dated February 18, 2002 (2 pages)
Letter to Applicant from Dr. H_ T_ dated March 8, 2002
Echocardiogram of March 6, 2002 from A_ J_ MD of Cardiovascular Associates PC Kingsport, TN
Letter to Dr. S_ from Dr. T_ dated March 8, 2002
Letter to Applicant from Dr. T_ M_ B_ MD of Cardiovascular Associates, PC Kingsport, TN dated April 14, 2003
Letter from Applicant’s father to board of review dated April 20, 2003 (5 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		010302 - 011127	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  011128		Date of Discharge:  011218

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  00  21
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  20			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  11			AFQT:  53

Highest Rank:  Pvt

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  None			Conduct:  None

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/FRAUDULENT ENTRY INTO MILITARY SERVICE, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6204.3.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

011129:	Applicant made voluntary statement reporting history of heart murmur.

011206:	Medical evaluation by Branch Medical Clinic, PISC.  Applicant has a physical condition, which existed prior to enlistment and is disqualifying for active duty: Heart murmur.  Aortic regurgitation.

011210:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for administrative discharge by reason of fraudulent entry into the U.S. Marine Corps.

011210:	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.

011213:	Commanding Officer directed discharge with an uncharacterized by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to a fraudulent entry into the U.S. Marine Corps.  The factual basis for this recommendation was a fraudulent entry for pre-service undisclosed history of heart murmur.  

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20011218 with an uncharacterized by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to a fraudulent 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.  On 20011129, the Applicant made a voluntary statement that he had a prior history of a heart murmur.  The Board found that the documentation and statements provided for review do not refute the presumption that the Applicant deliberately misrepresented his medical condition during the enlistment process, including the omission or concealment of facts which, if known at the time would have reasonably been expected to preclude, postpone, or otherwise affect the Marine's eligibility for enlistment or induction.  In addition, the documentation available for review did not refute the presumption that his heart condition still existed during the time of his enlistment.  No other narrative reason other than fraudulent entry more clearly describes the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s processing for administrative separation.  Relief denied.

The discharge was proper and equitable.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or inequity is evident 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.  Relief not warranted.

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.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is 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