Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00188
Original file (ND03-00188.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SR, USNR-R
Docket No. ND03-00188

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20020904. The Applicant requests that the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. The Applicant listed a private representative as the representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20031114. 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: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/UNSATISFACTORY PARTICIPATION IN THE READY RESERVE, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-158 (formerly 3630800).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“1. I enlisted in the United States Naval Reserves in July of 1999 in order to serve my country and obtain job skills that would help further my career in criminal justice. I completed a correspondence course in Basic Military Training, and had nearly completed one for Personnelman 3. The reason I did not complete this course was because I obtained a job in November 2000 with the State of Missouri with the Division of Youth Services. This job required weekend work and I was unable to attend weekend drill dates.

I spoke to personnelman at the Naval Reserve center in Bridgeton, MO in January 2001 about transferring to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR). I was told this was a common request that the center handled routinely. I was lead to believe that everything was in order for me to transfer to the IRR. In late April 2001, I was asked to provide a statement to the Navy about my desire to transfer to the IRR. I stated my current work situation, and added that I would be pursuing a career in Medicine and would like to eventually be a Navy doctor.

To date I have received no information from the Navy about the nature of -my discharge. I enrolled in Army ROTC courses at Western Kentucky University in 2002 and was scheduled to attend summer camp at Ft. Knox in the summer of 2002. Several requests by ROTC officers and me were made to the Naval Reserve Center and to the Personnel Records Administration in St. Louis to obtain my records. After repeated failure to obtain these records, the ROTC Officers obtained my discharge status from a local Naval Recruiter. I learned that I had been given a general discharge under honorable conditions. This was the first I had heard of this discharge after more than one year had passed since my last communication with the Navy.

Most Sincerely,

 2. Attended drills and satisfactory participated in annual training for 18 months.

3. Unsatisfactory participation was due to hardship conditions beyond my control, namely loss of job, desertion by my wife and newborn child, and geographical relocation where there is no US Naval Reserve Unit.

4. Prior and subsequent academic and work history demonstrate that unsatisfactory participation was an isolated lapse of judgement.

5. Once I had relocated, I should have been allowed to transfer to another unit to make up drills

6. Best interest of the United States of America will be served by my continuation in the ROTC program in which I am currently enrolled.”

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Letter from Applicant’s father to Office of the Judge Advocate General Navy, dated July 5, 2002
Letter from Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Kentucky, dated January 28, 2003
Letter from Applicant’s father, his legal representative, dated September 4, 2002
Character reference from Captain, United States Navy (Ret), dated September 7, 2002 (2 copies)
Letter to Applicant from Navy Personnel Command, dated September 13, 2002
Kentucky Community and Technical College System, grade report dated August 9, 2001
Brief submitted on behalf of Applicant
Final grades
Evaluation Report and Counseling Record, dated July 23, 2000
Performance information memorandum, dated June 16, 2000
Administrative Remarks page from Applicant’s service record, dated June 16, 2000
Certificate of Completion, dated December 11, 1999
Letter from Applicant’s father, legal representative, dated January 21, 2003
Letter from Applicant to Naval Marine Corps Reserve Center, dated March 24, 2001
Letter from Applicant to Naval Marine Corps Reserve Center, dated April 26, 2000
Letter to Applicant from Naval Reserve Readiness Center, dated May 4, 2001
E-mail to Applicant regarding transfer to the IRR, undated
Administrative Remarks page, dated June 21, 2001
Commanding Officer’s discharge recommendation, dated May 9, 2001
Notification Procedure, signed and dated March 14, 2001
Final Grades 2002 – Fall Semester
Final Grades Summer 2002
Final Grades Fall 2001

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: 997030               Date of Discharge: 010621

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 10 22
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 26                          Years Contracted: 8

 Education Level: 16                        AFQT: 85

 Highest Rate: SN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.00 (1)    Behavior: 3.00 (1)                OTA: 2.83

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

 Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/UNSATISFACTORY PARTICIPATION IN THE READY RESERVE, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-158 (formerly 3630800).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

010314:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve.
010314:  Applicant advised of his 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.

010509:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of unsatisfactory participation in the ready reserve. Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim): [Member has failed to actively drill in a satisfactory status and has not fulfilled the requirements to make his rate permanent therefore making himself ineligible for retention.]

010621:  Naval and Marine Corps Reserve Center directed the Applicant's discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of unsatisfactory participation in the ready reserve.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20010621 with a characterization of general (under honorable conditions) for unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve (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 thru 6: Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such error or injustice occurred during the Applicant’s enlistment. While he may feel that his family problems and employment conflicts were contributing factors, they do not mitigate the Applicant’s disobedience of the orders and directives that regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, demonstrating he was unsuitable for further service. Processing for unsatisfactory participation in the reserves may commence after nine unexcused drills. The Applicant’s service record is marred by twenty six unexcused drills. The Applicant was given ample opportunity to make arrangement so that he may fulfill his eight year obligation. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing educational or enlistment opportunities such as the Army ROTC program. Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge. In the Applicant’s case, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore considered the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable. Relief denied.

 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. However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review. Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the Applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than honorable discharge. Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, a positive employment record, and certification of community service and non-involvement with civil authorities are examples of verifiable proof that can be submitted.

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. The Applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time. 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 26, effective 04 January 2000 until 21 Aug 2002, MILPERSMAN Article 1910-158 (formerly 3630800), Separation by Reason of Unsatisfactory Participation in the Ready Reserve.

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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-01097

    Original file (ND03-01097.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Accident Police Report April 13, 2002 (2 pages) Patient Ledger (3 pages) Applicant’s service record (2 pages) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: None Active: None Period of Service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00843

    Original file (ND02-00843.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00843 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020529, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to TRANSFERRED TO IRR. I did not hear from my unit in any form the time I requested my transfer to the IRR until the time of my deployment as a dependent overseas. 900130: Applicant received for drill pay.901105: Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions by...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01075

    Original file (ND03-01075.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW ______________________________________________________________________ Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20021203 with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) for misconduct due to commission of serious offense and for unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve (A). You should read Enclosure (5) of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00490

    Original file (ND00-00490.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00490 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000307, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 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).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found that the applicant received a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge based on his missed...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00355

    Original file (ND03-00355.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (Equity Issue) This former member further requests that the Board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of this application.” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:One page from Applicant’s service record PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01194

    Original file (ND04-01194.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 010620: Commanding Officer directed discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserves. Issue 1: Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Naval...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00816

    Original file (ND03-00816.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. 921230: Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.930219: Commanding Officer recommended discharge under...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00574

    Original file (ND02-00574.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the acknowledgement letter to the Applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel; all hearings are held in the Washington, D.C. area and that the Board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Enlistment documents Copy of DD Form 214, dated July 11, 1984 NAVPERS 1070/613,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01349

    Original file (ND03-01349.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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. The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00292

    Original file (ND01-00292.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00292 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010116, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 930515: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had been an unsatisfactory participant in the Ready Reserve, warrants separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions. After a thorough review of the...