Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600389
Original file (ND0600389.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
 DISCHARGE REVIEW
DECISIONAL DOCUMENT
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-AN, USNR
Docket No. ND06-00389

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20060110 . The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of di scharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a personal appearance discharge review before a traveling panel. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. The Applicant was also informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel; all hearings are held in Washington, DC at the Washington Navy Yard. On 20060118, the NDRB received a second application for discharge review and the Applicant elected to have a record review instead of a personal appearance. The Applicant designated the Disabled American Veterans as the representative on both of the DD Form 293 ’s .
Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20061108 . 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) by reason of unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve .



PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated
Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application , dated December 5, 2005 and the a ttached letter s :
“ Please review the attached documents regarding my discharge . Also, I am in the process of contacting the Naval Reserve Headquarters in New Orleans, Louisiana to submit documents. ”
Issues as stated on an attached letter dated December 4, 2005:
“Dear Sir o r Ma’am,
 An upgrade is requested and justified for the reason that, my command abused its authority when it decided to discharge me and decide to give me general/under honorable conditions. Also, my command gave me a SPD code of JHJ and a reenlistment code of RE-4. I did notify my unit to let then know that I was ill and could not make it to my drills. Each month I called (XXX) XXX- XXXX [phone number deleted] and spoke to whoever manned the telephone. I was told I was covered for that drill weekend. CVSW has my home telephone, work telephone, address, and e-mail. My number has not changed. I have the same telephone number and address for over three years.

Also, I was sent information that I would be transferred to a voluntary unit, but then I found out that CSVW had discharge me without knowing (see attached form). CSVW did me an injustice by sepa rating me from the naval reserve. I did not deserve to be separated from the naval reserve and given a SPD code of JHJ and a reenlistment code of RE-4.

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:

“Dear Sir or Ma’am,
 I would like to respond to the statement of the commanding officer J. E. R_. The commanding officer of CVSW 0470 is a new commanding officer who never meet me. This commanding officer stated for :

 “Airman R_ (Applicant) did not submit matters in extenuation and mitigation regarding her numerous unexcused absences”. This statement is not true because I contacted CVSW 0470 each mo nth to let my unit know that I was ill. Each time I called, I was told by whoever manned the telephone that I was covered for the month.

“Airman R_ (Applicant) failed to advise the command of her up-to date mobilization information.” This is not True, because my address and telephone number is the same as it was when I enlisted. Please check my address and telephone number that is on DD Form 293. I nev er received mail from CVSW 0470.

This commanding officer abused his authority when he wrote those statements about me. Like I said before, Commander J.E. R_ does not know me and has never had one conversation with me. My command was not an honest command and I tried several times to transfer out. I was verbally abused by Chief C_ N_ and Lt. Cmdr. M_ B_ (see emails).

As stated, “This was an involuntary separation and an Administrative Board was not entitled. ”

I was giving orders to be transferred to a voluntary unit, but the month I returned to drill, I was told I had been discharged (see orders). Also, I would like the board to review my file from the Naval Reserve Headquarters in New Orleans, Louisiana. In my file, there are documents of all the correspondence courses I have taken and everything I have participated in.

I am asking the Naval Council of Personnel Boards to please review my application for an upgrade to Honorable and change in spin code to 1 and a new reenlistment code.

Sincerely,
(Applicant’s rank and signature)
PO3 M_ R_ (Applicant)
Issues as stated on the application, dated January 8, 2006:

“Please review the attached documents regarding my discharge.
BM3 M_ R_ “

I ssues submitted by Applicant’s representative , Disabled American Veterans , on a letter dated April 6, 2006 :
“The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of the discharge be changed to Honorable. The Applicant received a General/under Honorable conditions for unsatisfactory participation in the U.S. Naval Ready Reserve for her acquiring at least nine unexcused absences From her scheduled selected Reserves drill training in a 12 month period. The Applicant vehemently denies abusing her leave. She states that she did notify her unit to let them know that she was ill and she could not make it to her drills. Each month she states she called her unit and spoke w/someone who answered the phone and was told she was covered for that drill weekend. She states her phone numbers and address have been the same for 3 yrs.
Therefore, it is important that the Board consider all mitigating and extenuating circumstances in this case and a most favorable consideration of upgrading the discharge to honorable be granted in this case. DAV ”

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214
 Letter from the Disabled American Veterans, dtd April 6, 2006 (3 pages)
Letter from the Applicant, dtd December 4, 2005 (2 copies)
Letter from the Applicant, dtd December 4 2005   (2 copies)
Copy of NDRB Executive Secretary Letter to Applicant, dtd December 19, 2005
Copy of Enlisted Application and Orders To A Naval Reserve Unit          Termination/Modification, dtd January 25, 2005
Copy of Statement of Service for Naval Reserve Retirement, dtd December 8, 2005


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: 20020627              Date of Discharge: 20050318

Length of Service (years, months, days):

          Active: 02 08 05
         Inactive: None

 Time Lost During This Period (days):
         Unauthorized absence: 0 days
         Confinement:              0 days

Age at Entry: 29

Years Contracted: 8

Education Level: 16                                  AFQT: 33

Highest Rate: AN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: N OB (1)      Behavior: N OB (1)         OTA: N OB (1)

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214): National Defense Service Medal



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 :

020627:  Requirements for Non-Prior Service Enlistment. Applicant enlists in the Naval Reserve for 8 years. Applicant agrees to commence Non-Prior Service Accession Course within 12 months of enlistment.
020627:  Applicant acknowledges by signature COMNAVRESFORINST 1001.5C, S atisfac tory Participation Requirements/Record of Unexcused Absences. COMNAVRESFORINST 1001.5C states: t he requirements for satisfactory participation for Naval Reservists; the requirements for excuse of missed IDT periods; when an IDT period is considered unexcused; actions that may result if a Naval Reservist fails to maintain satisfactory participation; termination of IDT status; the Naval Reservist’s responsibility to contact the Commanding Officer of the Naval Reserve activity where they participate concerning missed IDTs; the activity phone number.

030421:  Applicant reports to Non Prior Service School Great Lakes, IL.

030507:  Applicant transferred to NR CVSW 0470, NAS JRB FT Worth.
050114:  COMNAVRESFORINST 1001.5C, S atisfactory Participation Requirement s/Record of Unexcused Absences dated 020627, annotated this date by Commanding Officer with the 12 IDT periods declared as unexcused.

050223:  Commanding Officer, Naval Air Reserve, Fort Worth signs letter of Administrative Separation Processing Notification Procedure notifying the Applicant of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of unsatisfactory participation in the U.S. Naval Ready Reserve by acquiring at least nine unexcused absences from scheduled Selected Reserve (SELRES) drill training in a 12-month period .

05022 4 :  Office of Staff Judge Advocate, Naval Air Reserve, Ft Worth, TX, sent cover letter to the Applicant. Subject: Administrative Discharge Processing for Unsatisfactory Participation in the U.S. Naval Ready Reserve. The letter was sent via certified mail, return receipt requested. Enclosure (1) to the cover letter was the Commanding Officer, Naval Air Reserve, Fort Worth letter of official Notification Procedures. Applicant advised that failure to return the Notification Procedures within 30 days after receipt will be deemed as a waiver of all rights.

050314:  Sworn statement by B_V_ D_, Legal Assistant, Office of Staff Judge Advocate, Naval Air Reserve, Ft Worth, TX. The United States Postal Service returned the unopened envelope containing the original Notification Procedures as “U nclaimed - Return to Sender ” . The letter had been sent to the last known mailing address for AN R_ (Applicant). AN R_ (Applicant) failed to keep her command advised of pertinent up-to-date mobilization information. The failure to acknowledge official certified mail or i f undeliverable to the member's last known address or the next of kin, the separation process shall continue (MILPERSMAN 36402000.)

050318 :  Commanding Officer, Naval Air Reserve , Fort Worth, notified Commander, Navy Personnel Command (PERS-913), that the Applicant was discharged on 050318 by reason of unsatisfactory participation in the U.S. Naval Reserve with a characterization of service of General (under honorable conditions). Reason for processing: “Airman M_ D. R_ (Applicant) has been processed Unsatisfactory Participation in the U.S. Naval Ready Reserve for her acquiring at least nine unexcused absences from her scheduled Selected Reserves drill training in a 12-month period. ”

050318:  Administrative Remarks NAVPERS 1070/613: Applicant discharged this date per BUPERSINST 1900.8A, unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve. Characterization of service: General. SPD Code: JHJ. Discharge Authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-158.



PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 20050318 by reason of unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve (A) with a service characterization of general (under honorable conditions). 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).

In the Applicant’s case, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore considered the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable. Specifically, Applicant alleges that her “command abused its authority” by discharging her with a characterization of General (under honorable conditions). On 20050114, the Applicant’s Commanding Officer, signed the COM NAVRESFORINST 1001.5C, Satisfactory Participation Requirements/Record of Unexcused Absences dated 20 020627, which recorded that the Applicant had accumulated 12 unexcused IDT periods. The COMNAVRESFORINST 1001.5C form was provided to the Applicant as enclosure (1) to the Administrative Separation Processing Notification Procedure that was sent via certified mail to the Applicant on 20050224. The envelope containing the enclosure and official Notification was returned to the command on 20050314, unopened and stamped as “Unclaimed- Return to Sender”. The record contains no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Applicant’s command or by anyone involved in the discharge process. Relief denied.

When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable. A general discharge is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member’s military record. The Applicant’s service was marred by 12 unexcused absences from her scheduled Selected Reserves drill training in a 1 0 -month period . The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of her service, reflects her willful failure to meet the requirements of her contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of her characterization of service. Relief is not warranted

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. 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.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 Aug 2002 until 4 Aug 2005, MILPERSMAN Article 1910-158 (formerly 3630800), SEPARATION BY REASON OF UNSATISFACTORY PARTICIPATION IN THE READY RESERVE .
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 .

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

Similar Decisions

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600256

    Original file (MD0600256.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Every time I was notified of drill, I called my Unit and informed the Navy Doc of my medical status i.e. that my back was still hurt and I had not had surgery because the doctors would not perform it. ]980807: Applicant absent from 1 drill,unexcused.980807: Commanding Officer/Inspector Instructor, Headquarters and Service Company, 1 st Battalion, 25 th Marines, 4 th Marine Division signs Notification of Separation Proceedings advising Applicant of intended recommendation for discharge by...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00413

    Original file (MD02-00413.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-00413 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020214, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Applicant not available for signature.001109: Commanding Officer notified the Applicant of unsatisfactory drill participation via certified letter.001203: Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500210

    Original file (MD0500210.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD05-00210 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20041020. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION _______________________________________________________________________ In accordance with Title 32, CFR, Section 724.166 and SECNAVINST 5420.174D, Part I, Paragraph 1.20, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the above issue and following statement in supplement to this Applicant’s petition.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00946

    Original file (MD04-00946.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. th TkBn, 4 th MarDiv, Broken Arrow, OK, mailed the Notification of Separation Proceedings, Acknowledgement of Rights form, and the Purpose and Scope of the Navy Discharge Review Board and Board for Correction of Naval Records form, by certified mail # P 894 747 966, return receipt...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00673

    Original file (MD03-00673.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-00673 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030305. The Applicant requested the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. th MARDIV] directed the Applicant's discharge under conditions other than honorable by reason of misconduct due to unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve.

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00670

    Original file (MD02-00670.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-00670 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020408, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01214

    Original file (MD04-01214.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider.

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501572

    Original file (MD0501572.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD05-01572 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050920. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). Issues, as stated Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application and/or from an attached document/letter to the Board:“Dear Members of the Naval Discharge Review Board,Ladies and Gentlemen my name is D_ W. S_(Applicant) III.

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-00280

    Original file (MD99-00280.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    951218: Acknowledged receipt of the Notification of Deficient Performance and Conduct. 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 (E and F).The applicant provided four (4) issues which explain why he did not attend scheduled drills and why he desires a discharge upgrade; none of the issues are decisional. There was nothing in the records, nor did the applicant...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-01179

    Original file (MD03-01179.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 000519: Letter of intent to administratively separate under other than honorable conditions for the failure to participate in reserve training was sent via certified mail, return receipt requested. Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)