ex-SR, USN 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20081110
Characterization of Service Received:  
Narrative Reason for Discharge: FAILED MEDICAL/PHYSICAL PROCUREMENT STANDARDS
Authority for Discharge:	MILPERSMAN 1910-130 (DEFECTIVE ENLISTMENTS AND INDUCTIONS - ERRONEOUS ENLISTMENT)

Applicant’s Request:  Characterization change to:  
		       Narrative Reason change to:  ERRONEOUS DISCHARGE

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: USNR (DEP)	20070924 - 20080212  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20080213	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20080401	Highest Rank/Rate:  SR
Length of Service:   Year(s)     Month(s)   19 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  93
Evaluation Marks:	Performance:  NFIR	Behavior:  NFIR	OTA:  NFIR

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	NDSM

Periods of UA/CONF:     NJP:     SCM:     SPCM:     CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

Related to Military Service:	
                                         DD 214:  	 Service/Medical Record:  		  Other Records:  

Related to Post-Service Period:	
	Employment:			Finances:			Education/Training:	
	Health/Medical Records:		Substance Abuse:			Criminal Records:	
	Family/Personal Status:		Community Service:		References:		
              Additional Statements:
                             From Applicant:  	From Representation:         	From Congress member:    

                    Other Documentation:  

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

Applicant’s Issues

1. Reenlistment opportunity.
2. Discharge based on erroneous Navy medical evaluation.

Decision

Date:  20090223		Location:  Washington D.C.	Representation:  

By a vote of  the Characterization shall  .
By a vote of  the Narrative Reason shall  FAILED MEDICAL/PHYSICAL PROCUREMENT STANDARDS.

Discussion

:   either  which the Board cannot form the basis of relief for the Applicant, or  the Board does not have the authority to grant the relief for which the Applicant petitioned.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically the paragraph concerning , regarding .  Note:  An unfavorable "RE" code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment.  The Board recommends the Applicant contact a local military recruiter to discuss the details and requirements to reenlist into military service.

:  ()  .  The Applicant contends his heart is healthy and the medical evaluation conducted at the Navy Recruit Training Command, Great Lakes, was erroneous.  In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  On 17 May 2008, the Applicant was diagnosed with diastolic dysfunction (heart abnormality) and subsequently discharged because this medical condition is not correctable to meet Navy standards.  

While in recruit training, the Applicant answered “yes” to chest pain on his Physical Activity Risk Factor Questionnaire (PARFQ); the Applicant was found to have an irregular heart beat five years earlier, but was checked and found healthy.  He was seen at a military clinic on 19 February 2008 for chest pain however, no problems were found, but the Applicant was given light duty.  Further evaluation of the member’s record indicated the Applicant’s sister died at age 18 of cardiomyopathy; a genetic heart condition.  On 29 February 2008, the Applicant was seen at the clinic again and did not have any chest pains at the time but did admit to previously having chest pains lasting one minute and relieved by deep breathing.  On 4 March 2008, the Applicant was screened by the Cardiology Clinic 200H and found to have an abnormal electrocardiogram (EKG), but a normal chest.  The Applicant reported having left chest heaviness for two weeks (then in his third week of recruit training) lasting 2-3 seconds and it was not exertion-related.  He also reported occasional abnormal heartbeats while lying down to sleep at night.  The physician reported the Applicant’s heart is normal in size and configuration (based on x-rays) and pulmonary vasculature is within normal limits.  The physician was still very unclear of the nature of the Applicant’s sister’s cardiomyopathy and why his EKG is so abnormal in light of an unremarkable [normal] echo.  The physician did note the Applicant had no regular exercise whatsoever before entry and was currently on light duty.  Later on 4 March 2008, the Applicant had a follow-up exam and was continued on limited duty.  On 10 March 2008, the Applicant performed a stress test at the Cardiology Clinic and the doctor’s impression was that it represented a “Normal Nuclear Cardiac Stress Test.”  The physicians, however, recommended separation based on significant diastolic dysfunction, family history, poor exercise tolerance, and inability to increase blood pressure with exercise, and echo findings.  On 11 March 2008, the clinic was waiting for cardiology’s report and the Applicant was advised to obtain records of cardiomyopathy screening by his civilian doctor.  On 13 March 2008, the Applicant came in for a follow-up and was continued on limited duty and the Navy cardiologist was waiting to review civilian medical records.  The Board could not determine if the Navy cardiologist was able to review the Applicant’s civilian medical records and presumes regularity of governmental affairs. On 17 March 2008, the Navy diagnosed the Applicant of diastolic dysfunction (heart abnormality) and subsequently discharged the Applicant.

In summary, the Applicant was found to have an irregular heartbeat by his civilian doctors in 2003 but his heart was considered healthy.  The Applicant’s sister did have restrictive cardiomyopathy, but did not die from it.  Rather, the Applicant states her 

death was from “her highly suppressed immune system being compromised” from an illness “(possibly with walking pneumonia).”  Her death certificate indicates immediate cause of death was congestive heart failure and conditions leading to the cause were acute cellular rejection [she had a heart transplant], cardiac arrhythmia, and hypotension.  The death certificate indicated no autopsy was performed, but the Applicant states in his email 25 April 2006 to the military doctor his sister’s heart was explanted and she was found to have a rarer abnormality called mitochondrial myopathy.  Based on his sister’s condition, Navy medical personnel correctly identified a family history of heart disease.  During the first few weeks of recruit training, the Applicant admitted to having left chest heaviness at night and indicated chest pains on his PARFQ, which resulted in further medical screening.  The Applicant had an abnormal EKG, but a normal echo and found to have a normal heart size and configuration. During the medical screenings, the Applicant was found to have no regular physical exercise program prior to entering and therefore was not physically prepared for recruit training.  Although the Applicant provided post-service medical documentation which was consistent with his pre-service medical evaluations, the Board finds it does not mitigate the diagnosis by the military cardiologist at the medical clinic in Great Lakes.  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service,  Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found   

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 20 June 2005 until Present, Article 1910-130, Separation by Reason of Defective Enlistments and Inductions - Erroneous Enlistment.

B.  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 V, Para 502, Propriety and Para 503, Equity.

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

Complaint Procedures:  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 Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Instruction to the Joint Service Review Activity, OUSD (P&R) PI-LP, The Pentagon, Washington, DC  20301-4000.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the Instruction 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 Instruction 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “http://Boards.law.af.mil.”

Additional Reviews:  Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of discharge.  The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any additional evidence related to this discharge.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.  If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted his opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100 for further review.

Service Benefits:  The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the Naval Discharge Review Board.  There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veterans' benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.

Employment/Educational Opportunities:  The Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.

Reenlistment/RE-code:  Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, the NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code.  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.  Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.  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.

Medical Conditions and Misconduct:  DoD disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation.  Appropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons.  Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board, and subsequently is processed for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended.  The Physical Evaluation Board case remains in suspense pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings.  If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct or for any basis wherein an Other Than Honorable Discharge is authorized, the medical board report is filed in the member’s terminated health record.  Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or other medical related reasons.  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records can grant this type of narrative reason change.

Automatic Upgrades - 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 Naval service.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review.  Examples of documentation that may be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.

Issues Concerning Bad-Conduct Discharges (BCD) – Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts, issues relating to the Applicant’s innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief.  With respect to a discharge adjudged by a special court-martial, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency.  Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed.  The NDRB does not have the jurisdictional authority to review a discharge or dismissal resulting from a general court-martial.

Board Membership:  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