Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801557
Original file (ND0801557.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-SA, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080718
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge: UNSAT 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) 20010927 - 20010929                 Active: 19991230 – 20000518

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20010930     Period of E nlistment : Years Extension          Date of Discharge: 20020610
Length of Service : Y ear s M onth s 11 D a ys      Education Level:        Age at Enlistment:     AFQT: 57
Highest Rank /Rate :       NFIR      Evaluation M arks: Performance:   NFIR     Behavior: NFIR OTA: NFIR
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): Rifle Pistol

Periods of UA /C ONF : NJP : S CM : SPCM: C C : Retention Warnings:

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

 Related to Military Service:     
DD 214:         Service/ 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 Congress m ember :

Other Documentation (Describe) :

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 26, effective 4 January 2000 until
21 August 2002, 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 .




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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Change i n reenlistment code so he can reenlist.
2. Discharge is too harsh.
3 . Personal circumstances impacted his service.

Decision

Date : 20 08 1030             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 , specifically the paragraph concerning , rega rding .

: ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable because he cannot join another branch of the service. 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. The Applicant join ed the Navy Reserve on 30 September 1999. There is no record of his attending any Reserve training service requirements from his join date until he was discharged on 10 June 2000 for UNSATISFACTORY PARTICIPATION. Per the MILPERSMAN 1910-158 /1910-304, a member may be separated when he acquire s at least nine unexcused absences from scheduled training in a 12-month period . The characterization of separation should be “ Honorable ” or “ General (Under Honorable Conditions ) ” . The Applicant’s Commanding Officer informed him in his discharge notification paperwork he was not recommended for reenlistment and he was receiving a “ General (Under Honorable Co nditions) ” character of service. The Applicant presents no evidence that he participated in required drills or that his discharge was in any way inconsistent with the standards of disc ipline in t he United States Navy . In lieu of the above, the Board determined an upgrade w ould be inappropriate.

: ( ) . The Applicant claims he was undergoing personal problems during his period of service and they should be taken into consideration. Again, i n 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 A pplicant. The Applicant has not elaborated on the personal problems he was enduring nor does he provide any documentation such as letters from witnesses, medical records, financial statements or divorce papers to support his claim. In lieu of the lack of evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board determined an upgrade w ould 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 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 or is referred to a court martial 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 or for any basis wherein an Other Than Honorable Discharge is authorized, 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 special 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. The NDRB does not have the jurisdictional authority to review a discharge or dismissal resulting from a general court-martial.

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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900200

    Original file (ND0900200.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.Besides the Applicant DD Form 293, no documentation was provided for review. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the...

  • 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 | 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...