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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

 ex-Pvt, USMCR
Docket No. MD05-01272

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050725.  The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests 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 20060403.  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 unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain Uncharacterized by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous entry.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“I provided to the MEPS documentation on my hearing and the surgery performed from Dr. R_ M_, dated November 14, 2003.  After reporting to Boot Camp my ears were still plugged from the flight.  I was given an audio logy exam before my ears popped and I didn’t do too well.  I was referred to the Beaufort ENT & Allergy and was examined by Dr. K_ B_.  He stated in his report “I have seen several recruits who remained with hearing levels worse than this.”  The report further states that my hearing is essentially normal.  I request my Reentry Code be upgraded to permit me to reenlist.”

Documentation

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

Medical Documents, Beaufort ENT and Allergy, dtd August 13, 2004 (2 pages)
Consultation sheet [electronic version of SF513], dtd August 2, 2004
Report of Medical Examination, dtd November 19, 2003 (2 pages)
Report of Medical History, dtd November 19, 2003 (2 pages)
Medical Prescreen of Medical History Report, dtd November 5, 2003 (4 pages)
Doctor’s operative report, dtd June 17, 2003
Physician’s progress notes from June 19, 2003 to July 21, 2003

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  None
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  20031119		Date of Discharge:  20040824

Length of Service (years, months, days):

Active:    00  01  06
	Inactive:  00  08  00

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  None
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  17

Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  76

Highest Rank:  Pvt				MOS:  9900

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  NA*				Conduct:  NA*

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as stated on the DD Form 214):  None

*Not Available

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:

031119:	DD Form 2807-1 9 [Report of Medical History].  Applicant reports that he “had ear surgery.”  Physician Summary and Elaboration of all Pertinent Data:  “...Tympanoplasty – to close perf TM... check TM’s on PE form...”  [Extracted from documents provided by Applicant]

040719:	Commenced active duty for training.

040726:	Applicant dropped to recruit separations platoon due to having a hole in eardrum.  [Extracted from recruit evaluation card.]

040726:	Applicant did not meet the required minimum audiology standards.  Applicant is dropped to recruit separations platoon as a result of an erroneous enlistment.  [Extracted from recruit evaluation card.]

040726:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.  Applicant acknowledged his discharge would be an entry level separation.

040727:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of erroneous entry.  The factual basis for this recommendation was erroneous for hearing loss.  

040730:	Commanding Officer, 2nd RTBN, MCRD Parris Island, SC, recommended Applicant’s discharge by reason of erroneous entry.

040802:	SF513/DD2161 [Consultation Sheet]:  “Reason for request:  ENT eval requested on 18 y/o male who is getting discharged from Marines for hearing loss that does not meet enlistment standards.  Please eval for r probable TM perf.  Tympanogram was attempted but unable to obtain seal on the r ear left s/p tympanoplasty 3-4 years ago”  [Extracted from documents provided by Applicant]

040813:	Applicant evaluated by Beaufort ENT & Allergy, Beaufort, S.C.  “...EXAM:  ...On the right side he’s [Applicant] got a large anterior interior perf.  This is about 30-40% of the surface area of the drum... IMPRESSION:  Bilateral severe eustachian tube dysfunction.”  [Extracted from documents provided by Applicant]

040824:	Commanding Officer, Recruit Training Regiment, MCRD Parris Island, SC, approved the Applicant’s recommendation for separation.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20040824 by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous entry (A) with a service characterization of uncharacterized.  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 (B and C).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (D).

By regulation, members notified of intended recommendation for discharge within the first 180 days of enlistment are eligible for an uncharacterized or entry-level separation characterization of service.  Unless there were unusual circumstances regarding a servicemember’s performance or conduct that would merit an honorable characterization, an uncharacterized discharge is generally considered the most appropriate characterization of a member’s service.  The Applicant's service record did not contain any unusual circumstances during his less than two months in the military to warrant a change of discharge to honorable.  

The Applicant contends that he, “provided to the MEPS documentation on my hearing and the surgery performed from Dr. R_ M_, dated November 14, 2003.”  The Applicant further implies that a medical exam conducted during his enlistment at Beaufort ENT & Allergy proved that the Applicant was qualified for military service.  The Applicant’s medical exam on 20040813 revealed that the Applicant had a large interior perforation in his right ear and that the Applicant suffered from bilateral severe eustachian tube dysfunction.  These conditions were unknown at the time the Applicant enlisted.   Separation by reason of erroneous enlistment is warranted when facts, such as the Applicant’s medical conditions discovered on 20040813, if known at the time of the Applicant’s enlistment, would have reasonably been expected to preclude, postpone, or otherwise affect the Marine's eligibility for enlistment, the action was not the result of fraudulent conduct on the part of the Marine and the defect is unchanged in material respects.  Therefore, the Board found that the Applicant meet the criteria for separation by reason of erroneous enlistment and found the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code.  An unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment.  A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of 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 P1900.16F), effective 
01 September 2001 until Present, paragraph 6204, DEFECTIVE ENLISTMENT AND INDUCTION.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety.

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs.  

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 “http://Boards.law.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:

		Secretary of the Navy 	Council of Review Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023