Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800132
Original file (ND0800132.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-HM3, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20071027
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge: UNSAT PARTICIPATION IN THE READY RESERVE
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive: US N R (DEP)      NFIR             Active:
Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 19970618      Period of enlistment : NFIR Years Extension      Date of Discharge: 20020304
Length of Service : 4 Yrs Mths 16 D ys     Education Level: NFIR     Age at Enlistment: NFIR   AFQT: NFIR
Highest Rank /Rate : HM3    Evaluation marks: Performance: 2.67 ( 3 )    Behavior: 2.33 ( 3 )         OTA: 2.71
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): Rifle Pistol

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJPs :    
        

Retention Warnings : NFIR
        

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
2. Commander changed policy on Flex Drills
3 . No notice was sent out

Decision

Date: 20 08 0221             Location: Washington D.C         R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall UNSAT PARTICIPATION IN THE 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 .

Issue s 2 – 3: ( ). The Applicant implies that he r Commander changed the flex drill policy and then told her that she wanted her out of the Navy . The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs. The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue. Though the Applicant’s service record is incomplete, the Board noted on an Evaluation Report and Counseling Record, dated 20010612, that the Applicant’s rater an no tat ed that the Applicant had problems attending regularly scheduled drill s, missed a number of drills, and needed to get back on track as a member of the Navy reserve. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that the command unfairly singled her for separation. The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case. 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 found that

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 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 5420.174D 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 .


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 | 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...

  • 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300926

    Original file (MD1300926.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD13-00926 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT APPLICANT’S ISSUES 1. The NDRB has no authority to grant the Applicant a new administrative separation board. There is no requirement or law that prants 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.

  • 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...

  • 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900372

    Original file (ND0900372.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and a change would be inappropriate.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. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1401733

    Original file (ND1401733.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Authority for Discharge: (per NPC PERS-4913) MILPERSMAN 1910-158 [UNSAT PARTICIPATION IN READY RESERVE] Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801056

    Original file (ND0801056.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The second incident occurred in the hotel where the drilling reservists stay during drill periods. The Board determined an upgrade would be inappropriate.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 ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801557

    Original file (ND0801557.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In lieu of the lack of evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board determined an upgrade would be inappropriate.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 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300062

    Original file (ND1300062.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant wants to reenlist.2. Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .Discussion The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.In reviewing discharges, the...