Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800807
Original file (MD0800807.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080116
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge: UNSAT PARTICIPATION IN READY RESERVE
Authority for Discharge: MARCORSEPMAN

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive: USMCR (DEP)     N/A              Active:         
Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 20050621               Period of enlistment : Years Months             Date of Discharge: 20070315
Length of Service : Yrs Mths 22 D ys      Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 38
MOS: 0331 Highest Rank:                           Fitness reports:
Proficiency/Conduct marks (# of occasions):      ( )/ ( )
 Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): Rifle Pistol

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJPs :    
        
S CMs :   

SP CMs:  

CC:      

6105 Counseling :

Types of Documents Submitted

 Related to Military Service:      DD 214:          Service and/or 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 Representat ion :              From Member of Congress:
Other Documentation (Describe)



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Reenlistment Opportunities

Decision

Date: 20 08 0416             Location: Washington D.C         R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall UNSAT PARTICIPATION IN READY RESERVE .
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 regarding , specifically the paragraph concerning Reenlistment/RE-codes.

The Board reviews the propriety and equity of an Applicants discharge individually, on a case-by-case basis. If such a review reveals an impropriety, relief is in order. Regulations permit relief on equitable grounds if the Applicant’s discharge is inconsistent with standards of discipline of the Nav a l service. In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evid e nce to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.

The Applicant joined his Reserve Unit during December 2005 and indicates he missed Reserve training between 22-24 Septemb e r 2006 due to a family situation . The Applicant states he contacted his command however leadership did not approve his absence. The Applicant indicates lack of moral support f r o m the command concerning his situation and trouble making up the missed drills. No other documentation from the Applicant is on file other than his statements.

There is credible evidence in the record attesting to the fact that Applicant had been counseled throughout 2006 for lack of participation and failure to maintain a Class I or II dental classification ; a ll counse ling received were retention warnings.
Command documentation indicates and supports the Appl i cant obtained 19 UA drill periods and failed to return any phone calls made by the Command to discuss his unsatisfactory performance. T he Command attempted to notif y the Applicant of their intent to admin istratively discharge him and sent , via certifie d mail, his Acknowledge of Rights (AOR) . H e failed to return the paperwork and also failed to make any statements in his defense to the command. By failure to return the AOR the Applicant waived all rights to an Administrative Separations Board. Unauthorized absences are considered a serious offense in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86, and could have resulted in a punitive discharge if authorized by a Special or General Courts - Martial.

The Command recommended an Other Than Honorable discharge and forwarded this recommendation on 21 December 2006 to the Commanding General, Fourth Marine Division for adjudication. On 6 March 2007 the Commanding General concurred with the Command and directed that the Applicant be administratively discharged from the United States Marine Corps reserve. A change by the NDRB in the characterization would be inappropriate.

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that









Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, MCO P1900.16F, paragraph 6213, UNSATISFACTORY PARTICIPATION IN THE READY RESERVE , effective 01 September 2001 until Present.

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 .

C. The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 .



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, provi ded 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 grante d 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.
Employmen t / 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 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, 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 “PTSD . ” 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 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.

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

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800656

    Original file (ND0800656.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision Date: 20080523Location: Washington D.C Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall UNSATISFACTORY PARTICIPATION IN READY RESERVE.Discussion :() .The Applicant has requested the characterization of discharge be upgraded to honorable so he can be reinstated into the military. Based on the members overall service record, performance evaluations and lack of documented disciplinary action the Boardconcluded there was an inequity in...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901591

    Original file (ND0901591.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the evidence of record, the NDRB determined the Applicant met the requirements for separation by reason of unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve, and the awarded characterization of service was warranted.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entriesand discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901304

    Original file (ND0901304.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s date of discharge. 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. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800370

    Original file (ND0800370.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents SubmittedRelated to Military Service: DD 214: Service and/or 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 Member of Congress: Other Documentation (Describe) DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901266

    Original file (ND0901266.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: REQUESTED, FINANCIAL HARDSHIP Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:NONE Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20030731Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20040614Highest Rank/Rate:OSSNLength of Service: Year(s)Month(s)14 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 36EvaluationMarks:Performance:NFIRBehavior:NFIROTA: NFIRAwards and Decorations (per DD 214):NONEPeriods of...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800755

    Original file (MD0800755.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USMCR (DEP)20021019 - 20030519Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20030520Period of enlistment: Years MonthsDate of Discharge:20061107Length of Service: Yrs Mths27 DysEducation Level: Age at Enlistment:AFQT: 56MOS: 0311Highest Rank: Fitness reports: Proficiency/Conduct marks (# of occasions): (3)/(3)Awards and Decorations (per DD 214): Rifle...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800132

    Original file (ND0800132.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Therefore, the Board determined that an upgrade to honorable was inappropriate.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. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901121

    Original file (ND0901121.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Wants to reenlist and was told he would beeligible for reenlistment into the Navy six months after discharge.2. However, even if the Applicant could have produced additional evidence to support a review based on his post-service conduct, the Applicant must have a full understanding that post-service conduct alone does not guarantee an upgrade.Summary: After a thorough review of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900262

    Original file (ND0900262.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Record of service. Based on the circumstances, the Board determined an upgrade to “Honorable” would be appropriate.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. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900192

    Original file (MD0900192.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board does not consider the Applicant’s request being denied as mistreatment; the Applicant was not in a satisfactory drill status in the spring of 2004 as evidenced by his missed IDTS in February 2004 and therefore was not eligible to transfer until after his missed IDT’s were made up. The NDRB determined an upgrade would be inappropriate.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by...