Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800272
Original file (ND0800272.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AK2, USNR-R
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20071030
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge: UNSATISFACTORY PARTICIPATION IN THE READY RESERVE
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN (UNSATISFACTORY PARTICIPATION IN THE READY RESERVE)

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive: US N R (DEP)      NONE               Active: 19920805-20020503 HON
Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 20020504      Period of enlistment : Years Extension          Date of Discharge: 20060120
Length of Service : Yrs Mths 16 D ys      Education Level:         Age at Enlistment: 42     AFQT: 64
Highest Rank /Rate : AK2    Evaluation marks: Performance: 3.0 ( 3 )     Behavior: 1.67 ( 3 )         OTA: 2.85
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): Rifle Pistol NRMSM (3) MUC NDSM (2) AFRM

Periods of UA /C ONF :     

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) Prescription



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. The A pplicant claims he was unfairly treated and he tried to contact his command with no response.
 2 . The Applicant claims he w as told he could not drill because of Parkinson’s disease

Decision

Date: 20080619             Location: Washington D.C         R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall UNSATISFACTORY PARTICIPATION IN THE READY RESERVE .
Discussion

 Issue 1 ( ) : . The Applicant claims he was unfairly treated by his command and he tried to contact his command with no response. During Board reviews the government is presumed to conduct its affairs with regularity unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. There was no evidence in the record , nor was there any presented by the Applicant , to indicate unfair treatment by the command. The record also indicates the command attempted to contact the Applicant via certified mail. The certified letter mailed by the command in an effort to make contact with the Applicant after repeated missed drills was returned as unclaimed. There is no evidence in the record, other than the Applicants own statements, indicating t he Applicant attempted to contact the command.
The Applicant faile d to maintain contact with his command and failed to maintain satisfactory drill attendance which made him unsuitable to serve in the Navy Reserve . The command initiated corrective action, as required, and processed the Applicant for discharge in accordance with standard procedures. The Board determined an upgrade was not warranted.

Issue 2 ( ) : . The Applicant claims he was told he could not drill because of Parkinson’s disease. There is no documented evidence of medical entries concerning this issue, nor did the Applicant provide any evidence from a competent medical authority diagnosing him with Parkinson’s disease. Additionally, there is no evidence in the Applicant’s service record denying him drill participation due to Parkinson’s disease. Once again, the Board determined an upgrade was not warranted.

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

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 12, effective 5 August 2005 until Present, MILPERSMAN Article 1910-158, 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

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001319

    Original file (MD1001319.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Based on the Applicant’s refusal to attend required drills with his Reserve Unit, command administratively processed for separation. ” 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1401649

    Original file (ND1401649.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks a change to his RE-code.2. The Applicant contends he was wrongly discharged from a drilling status.The Applicant contends he was either present for the annotated missed drills or they were authorized absences. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901281

    Original file (MD0901281.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 29 December 2004, the Applicant made contact with his unit--evidence that the command’s attempts to communicate with the Applicant were well-placed. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain UNSATISFACTORY PARTICIPATION IN READY RESERVE. ”...

  • 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200541

    Original file (MD1200541.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant also requests a change to the narrative reason because of miscommunication between the Applicant, medical personnel, and his chain of command.There is credible evidence in the record to show the Applicant missed 23 drills of his mandatory training in the Marine Corps Reserve. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301166

    Original file (ND1301166.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.Issue 2: (Decisional) (Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain.The Applicant remains eligible...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201792

    Original file (ND1201792.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to:I WOULD LIKE TO RE-ENLIST Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:NONE Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20080226Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20100712Highest Rank/Rate:CECNLength of Service: Inactive: Year(s)Month(s) 07 Day(s) Active Year(s)Month(s) 10 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 57EvaluationMarks:Performance:3.0(1)Behavior:3.0(1)OTA:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901390

    Original file (ND0901390.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the characterization of service received, General (Under Honorable Conditions), was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service and the UCMJ violations involved, and without any post-service documentation provided 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 Pertinent...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900712

    Original file (ND0900712.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ex-CMCR, USN Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request Application Received: 20090204 Characterization of Service Received: Narrative Reason for Discharge: UNSATISFACTORY PARTICIPATION IN READY RESERVE Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP) 19920125 - 19920828 Active: NONE Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19920923 Age at Enlistment: Period of...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700817

    Original file (MD0700817.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Narrative Reason: UNSATISFACTORY PARTICIPATION IN THE READY RESERVEAuthority: MARCORSEPMAN 6213 ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of discharge. Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board, and subsequently is processed for an administrative involuntary separation for misconduct, the disability...