DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 

Docket No. 4096-17 

Dear , 

This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the 
provisions of 10 USC 1552. 

Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of 
justice to waive the statute of limitations and consider your case on its merits. A three-member 
panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your 
application on 28 September 2017. The names and votes ofthe members ofthe panel will be 
furnished upon request. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance 
with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings ofthis Board. 
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted ofyour application, together with all 
material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions ofyour naval record and applicable 
statutes, regulations and policies. 

A review ofyour record shows that you were medically cleared for enlistment on 8 November 
1982 despite a preexisting-sprained knee suffered in High School. You entered active duty on 19 
April 1983 but reported knee pain due to marching and physical training on 3 May 1983. A 
medical board diagnosed you with chondromalacia, a condition that existed prior to your entry, 
on 17 May 1983 and recommended you for an erroneous enlistment discharge. You were 
discharged on 25 May 1983 for erroneous enlistment and issued an uncharacterized entry level 
separation. The Department ofVeterans Affairs issued you a combined 80% disability rating for 
service connected disabilities effective 1 December 2016. 

The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve a disability discharge, 
Honorable characterization ofservice, and constructive credit to provide you 90 days ofactive 
service. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. First, the Board 
determined you were properly discharged for erroneous enlistment since you reported a 
preexisting disability condition during your entrance physical that led to your inability to 
complete your basic training. Based on your entrance physical and statements to the medical 
board regarding your high school knee injury from weight lifting, the Board decided that the 
medical board finding that your condition existed prior to your entry into the Navy was correct 
and you met the requirements for an erroneous enlistment since you did not meet physical 
accession standards for enlistment. Second, the Board could find no evidence to support your 
request for construction active duty credit. You provided a statement that you did your best to 
honor your enlistment obligation, as well as other mitigation evidence, as the basis for relief. 
The Board felt this was insufficient to grant the credit you seek since the mitigation evidence you 
offer does not merit the additional days ofcredit. The Board simply was not persuaded that you 
deserve the credit because ofyour good intentions in 1983 or any negative post-discharge 
experiences you may have suffered. Finally, the Board decided that you were properly issued an 
uncharacterized entry level separation based on your briefperiod ofservice. Service regulations 
allow for the services to issue uncharacterized discharges for service members serving less than 
180 days. While there are exceptions to this policy, the Board concluded you did not meet any 
ofthe policy exceptions to warrant a characterized separation. Accordingly, the Board was 
unable to find an error or injustice warranting a correction to your record and denied your 
application. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken 
at this time. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission of 
new and material evidence. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board. 
In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all 
official records. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the 
burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 


Executive Director