Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00492
Original file (ND02-00492.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


ex-E-4, USNR-R
Docket No. ND02-00492

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 020308, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The Applicant did not list representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 021115. 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 of the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-156 (formerly 3630300).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION


Issues, as submitted

 1. Narrative Attachment: Received General Discharge for fail to report for drill, after being released was given permission by commander, after change of watch, new commander issued discharge. I am writing to you in hopes of changing my discharge from the US Naval Reserve from general to honorable. I enlisted in the US Naval Reserve in Grand Rapids, MI on 25 February, 1998 with the understanding I was to be rated master at arms, as this corresponded with my civilian career as a police officer. After approximately nine months, this rating was still not in effect and I was assigned to a seabee unit. At this point, I spoke with the commanding officer, S.R. W_, CMDR and inquired as to the future of this position. CMDR W_ stated he understood and recommended I consider other branches. I started meeting with other recruiters and was attempting to enlist in the US Coast Guard for a port security position. I met with my immediate commander, LCDR M_ and explained my intent. LCDR M_ said he understood and would start the paperwork for a discharge.After a few weeks, LCDR M_ presented me with the paperwork and told me I was approved for a discharge. I signed and he wished me good luck. The commander was retiring in a couple of weeks, and I asked LCDR M_ if I would be able to attend. LCDR M_ apologized, but told me that I had been discharged and this was only for reserve personnel to attend.
 I believed that the information listed above was very clear that I was no longer obligated to the US Naval Reserve, and no longer attended drill. In April of 1999, 1 received a letter from the new commander, LCDR Y_ R_, stating I was discharged under "general" for not attending drill. She claimed that several notices were sent out informing me of this. This is possible, since I moved out of the area shortly after being discharged. I emailed LCDR R_ and explained my situation, but she stated she was unaware and it was now out of her hands, and that I must contact this board for the change. LCDR R_ did admit that LCDR M_ made a mistake by telling me I no longer had to drill. I am requesting my discharge changed to honorable, because I did serve honorably during my time. I took pride in wearing the uniform of the US Armed Forces and served with pride and honor, always giving my all. The discharge was given due to a lack of communication and a verbal mistake of my immediate commander. I respectfully ask the board to consider the facts and look at the individual, and I believe you will see that a mistake did happen to a dedicated reservist.
In advance, I respectfully thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you.
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Letter from Applicant dated February 16, 2002
Copy of NAVPERS 1070/613 (2 copies)
 Letter from Applicant dated April 4, 2002
 Two pages from Applicant's service record
 Letter from Applicant dated June 1, 2002

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: 980226               Date of Discharge: 990602

 Length of Service (years, months, days):
         Active: 01 03 07
          Inactive: None
Age at Entry: Unknown            Years Contracted: 8

 Education Level: Unknown                  AFQT: Unknown
Highest Rate: E-4

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):
Performance: NMF*                 Behavior: NMF             OTA: NMF

 Military Decorations: None
Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: Unknown
Days of Unauthorized Absence: Unknown

 *No Marks Found in the service record.
Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-156 (formerly 3630300).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

990602:  NAVPERS 1070/613: Applicant discharged under honorable conditions (general) by reason of unsatisfactory performance and failure to respond within 30 days of notification of administrative board proceedings.
Separation/discharge package missing from service record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 990602 under honorable conditions (general) by reason of unsatisfactory performance (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 Applicant failed to present sufficient evidence to overturn the Board’s presumption of regularity concerning his separation proceedings. Normally, to permit relief, an impropriety or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such impropriety 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 NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Naval Service or any other branch of the Armed Forces. Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment. A request for waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter. Relief is therefore denied.

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 Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), change 18, effective 12 Dec 97 to Present, Article 1910-156 (formerly 3630300), Separation by Reason of Unsatisfactory Performance.

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      


Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01249

    Original file (ND02-01249.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01249 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20020904, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Decision A record discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20031017. Pt did indicate an understanding of same.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00146

    Original file (ND03-00146.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00146 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20021030. The Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence that he requested to return to the IRR status, therefore continuing this drill status, he incurred an obligation to drill with his reserve unit until 19951219. While the Applicant may believe that he was not required to attend scheduled drills and that he was not properly notified of his pending administrative separation, the record is devoid of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00937

    Original file (ND04-00937.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-AR, USN Docket No. ND04-00937 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040520. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions, entry level separation or uncharacterized.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600389

    Original file (ND0600389.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I would like the board to please review my case and give me am upgrade of honorable and a reenlistment code of RE-1.Sincerely, (Applicant’s rank and signature) PO3 M_ R_ (Applicant) ” Issues as stated on an additional attached letter also dated December 4, 2005:I would like to respond to the statement of the commanding officer J. E. R_. 050318: Commanding Officer, Naval Air Reserve, Fort Worth, notified Commander, Navy Personnel Command (PERS-913), that the Applicant was discharged on...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00301

    Original file (ND00-00301.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Age at Entry: 18 Years Contracted: 4 Education Level: 12 AFQT: 75 Highest Rate: AZ3 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks): Performance: 3.30 (6) Behavior: 2.40 (7) OTA: 3.08 Military Decorations: None Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, GCM Days of Unauthorized Absence: 2 Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-156 (formerly...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600424

    Original file (ND0600424.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00424 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20060126. APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Issues, as stated Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application: “ At the time of my discharge, I had some serious personal problems that made it difficult for me to focus on my job as a Navy Hospital Corpsman. Whatever happens, thank you for your time & consideration.” Documentation In addition to the service and medical records, the following additional...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00738

    Original file (ND00-00738.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The reason shall change to: Secretarial Authority.The applicant’s first issue states: “Over 95% of my service record is honorable and so warrants an upgrade to honorable. I received an Honorable discharge and a good conduct medal from my previous command after 4 years of service.” As every enlistment results in a discharge for that period alone, the NDRB found the applicant’s low overall performance, 1.56, and misconduct, violation of UCMJ Articles 86 and 107, in his last enlistment...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00673

    Original file (ND02-00673.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    SR D_ T_ presented a written statement, which I reviewed while in legal, which told of how she had overheard these girls talking about how they were going to "get me" and other things, but her statement was not even taken into account, nor was she present at the mast in front of LCDR C_. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01052

    Original file (ND00-01052.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 981022 honorable by reason of unsatisfactory performance (A). The applicant is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00456

    Original file (ND02-00456.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00456 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020225, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. On May 4 th I was informed that I was not going to be transferred and that all request where denied.My dad's condition was serious so I took the matter upon myself to leave my duty station on May 6 th 2000 and return home to provide care for my father. I received a General Discharge (under honorable conditions) and...