Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800656
Original file (ND0800656.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-SN, USN-R
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080111
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: US N R (DEP)      NONE               Active:
Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 19990526      Period of enlistment : Years Extension          Date of Discharge: 20040311
Length of Service : Active: Yrs Mths 05 D ys Inactive: Yrs Mths 12     Education Level:
Age at Enlistment: AFQT: 37
Highest Rank /Rate : MS2    Evaluation marks: Performance: 3.0 ( 4 )     Behavior: 3.3 ( 4 )          OTA: 3.18
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):

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)



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Desires to be reinstated into the Navy .
2. Record is flawless .
3 . Narrative reason change.

Decision

Date: 20 08 0523             Location: Washington D.C         R epresentation :

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 upgrade d to honorable so he can be reinstated into the military. which the Board does not have the authority to grant the relief for which the Applicant petitioned. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum , for additional information regarding .

: ( ) . The Applicant contends his military service is flawless and he is therefore requesting the characterization of his discharge be upgraded to honorable. Pursuant to MILPERSMAN 1910-158 the characterization of discharge for members separated due to Unsat isfactory Participation in the Ready Reserve should be honorable, unless a general or entry level characterization is warranted The Board review ed all of the available records , supporting documents, facts, e lements of d ischarge , evidence submitted by the Applicant , and circumstances unique to this case . A particular circumstance of interest was the lack of any disciplinary action during the enlistment period of th e Applicant which would prevent a characterization of service as honorable. The Applicant’s overall trait average for four evaluation periods was 3.18 on a 5.0 scale. The commanding officer’s recommendation to Commander, Naval Personnel Command of 29 January 2004, indicated the characterization of service should be uncharacterized. Pursuant to a message sent out on 11 March 2004, COMNAVPERSCOM approved the discharge of the member for Unsat isfactory Participation in the Ready Reserve with the type of discharge as warranted by the service record. Based on the members overall service record , performance evaluations and lack of documented disciplinary action the B oard concluded there was an i nequity in the characterization of discharge and the Applicant should have received an honorable discharge . The Board determined an upgrade was warranted.

: ( ) . The Applicant also requested his narrative reason be changed to “Reassigned to Navy”. The Board, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of a discharge, will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted. Pursuant to MILPERSMAN 1910-158, members may be separated by reason of Unsat isfactory Participation in Ready Reserve when they acquire at least 9 unexcused absences from scheduled training in a 12 month period. The Applicant’s record indicates he had at least 16 unexcused absences from drills for the period from December 2002 through January 2004 . The service record clearly documents the Applicant’s unsatisfactory participation in the ready reserve monthly drills which resulted in the Applicant’s discharge. Since no other Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describe why the Applicant was discharged, a change would be inappropriate. The Board determined relief is not warranted.

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. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 August 2002 until
4 August 2005, 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 other medical related reasons. 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 | ND0902443

    Original file (ND0902443.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service and record entries, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain .The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of...

  • 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 | 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 | 2010_Navy | ND1001094

    Original file (ND1001094.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Applicant seeks an upgrade to reenlist in the U.S. Armed Forces.2. Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.After extensive review and analysis of the available records, the NDRB determined that the 7 Apr 2006 NAVPERS 1070/Page 13 Honorable discharge entry was the most correct characterization of service. ” Additional...

  • 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 | 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 | 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...

  • 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 | 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...