Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900375
Original file (ND0900375.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-RM2, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20081119
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge: WEIGHT CONTROL FALURE
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN 1910-170

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: US A (DEP)       198906 - 19905        Active:   19900816 - 19940802
USNR (DEP)       19900512 - 19900815
USNR (DEP )      19940923 - 19941011

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 19941012     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 19980428      Highest Rank/Rate: RM2
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 17 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 54
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 4.0 ( 1 )      Behavior: 2.0 ( 1 )        OTA: 3.14

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      NFIR

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP : S CM : SPCM:

C C :

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 19971118 :       For second physical readiness program failure in a four year period.

- 19980406 :       For third physical readiness program failure in a four year period.

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 :

Oth er Documentation :


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Reenlistment opportunity.
2. Record of service.

Decision

Date: 20 0 9 0514             Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall WEIGHT CONTROL FAILURE .
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 , regarding this Issue.
: ( ) . The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade due to his r ecord of 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 NDRB concurs with the Ap plicant’s contention. For discharges based on weight control failure, the characterization should be H onorable unless there is justification for an Entry Level S eparation (ELS) , or G eneral ( U nder H onorable C onditions) characterization . The Applicant does not meet the requirement for an ELS discharge and the NDRB found no documentation of misconduct, poor performance or counseling’s indicating sub-standard conduct , NJPs or evaluations to warrant a G eneral ( U nder H onorable C onditions) characterization. The NDRB determined the Applicant’s service meets the criteria to warrant an upgrade of his characteri zation of service to Honorable, but the narrative reason shall remain Weight Control Failure.

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. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), effective 12 December 1997 until 31 August 1998, Article 1910-170, SEPARATION BY REASON OF WEIGHT CONTROL AND/OR PHYSICAL READINESS TEST FAILURE .

B. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C, Change 18, effective 12 December 1997 until present, Article 6110-010, HEALTH AND PHYSICAL READINESS PROGRAM.

C . 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 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 | 2008_Navy | ND0801819

    Original file (ND0801819.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ” 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. Service Benefits: The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the Naval Discharge Review Board. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a special court-martial, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900092

    Original file (ND0900092.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801313

    Original file (ND0801313.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT (PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT).Discussion :The Applicant admits the punishment he received was just, but contends the RE-Code was “ a little harsh ” . 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 Dissenting opinion: The Applicant was administratively discharged based on misconduct due to a pattern of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900202

    Original file (ND0900202.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant has requested an upgrade in his discharge characterization to “Honorable”. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801926

    Original file (ND0801926.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.For discharges based on conditions not a disability, the discharge should be honorable unless there exists justification for a “General (Under Honorable Conditions) ” , or entry level separation characterization. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801611

    Original file (ND0801611.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)20021218 - 20030701Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20030702Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20050727Length of Service: Years Months26 DaysEducation Level: Age at Enlistment:AFQT: 48Highest Rank/Rate:ANEvaluationMarks:Performance:2.0(1) Behavior:1.0(1)OTA: 1.67Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):SSDR NDSM GWOTEMPeriod...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801540

    Original file (MD0801540.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant contends he is entitled to an upgrade since his Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) was not completed before he was discharged.The Applicant was the subject of a medical board conducted 10 January 2003. The record of evidence shows the Applicant was notified in writing by his Battalion Commander on 12 February 2003 he was recommending the Applicant be discharged with a “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” characterization of service. The Board determined an upgrade would be...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900102

    Original file (ND0900102.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE).Discussion :The Applicant is requesting his Re Code changed in order to reenlist in the military. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900301

    Original file (ND0900301.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Pursuant to MILPERSMAN 1910-170, administrative separation processing ismandatory for members when they do not achieve prescribedphysical readiness standards by failing to pass three physicalfitness assessment (PFA) cycles in a 4-year period.Per the Administrative Separation Notice of 9 July 2007, the Applicant was notified of administrative processing due to PFA failure and subsequently discharged.Members discharged on the basis of failure to meetphysical standards should receive...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801932

    Original file (ND0801932.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...