Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901266

Original file (ND0901266.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-SN, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20090417

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: REQUESTED, FINANCIAL HARDSHIP

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:         NONE              Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20030731     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20040614      Highest Rank/Rate: OSSN
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 14 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 36
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: NFIR         Behavior: NFIR OTA: NFIR

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      NONE

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP : S CM : SPCM:

C C :

Retention Warning Counseling :

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 :

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 .

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

Applicant’s Issues

1. Stopped drilling due to financial reasons .
2. Change narrative reason for discharge to “financial hardship. ”

Decision

Date : 20 0 9 0810 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

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 discharg e if such change is warranted. In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of g overnment al affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. The NDRB found no evidence in the Applicant’s service record of any NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warnings or misconduct resulting in nonjudicial punishment or court-martial. Based on the Applicant’s failure to maintain a satisfactory drill status, his command administratively processed him for separation. His command sent the Administrative Separation Processing Notification Procedure notice to the Applicant via certified mail on 28 April 2004, and apparently, it was never acknowledged by the Applicant.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because he was struggling financially and needed to take a job that required him to work weekends, which conflicted with his obligation to drill once a month in the Navy Reserve . In his statement, the Applicant state d he spoke to the administration at the base that he was not able to attend drills anymore due to financial difficulties and h ad mailed a letter informing them of his decision. The Applicant also requested to change the reason for discharge to “financial hardship.” The Applicant joined the Navy Reserves on 31 July 2003 and proceeded to drill one weekend a month from August to December 2 003. Per Navy policy, m embers may be separated when they acquire at least nine unexcused absences from scheduled training in a 12-month period. The Applicant did not attend any drills from January through March, which constituted at least nine consecutive missed drills and a breech of contract with the Navy. The Applicant stated he was “struggling financially,” y et he would not go to his required drill periods, which he would be paid to attend . Reviewing the Social Security office records the Applicant submitted, he was paid by the Navy a sum of $723.68. It’s the Board’s experience that Reserve units are extremely flexible in working with their Sailor s’ schedules for them to meet their obligations, allowing them to f ulfill their training obligations on weekdays or weekends. There was no mention in the Commanding Officer, Naval and Marine Corps Reserve Center, San Diego (UIC: 62106) letter 1900 Ser N00/1138 of 22 June 2004, that the Applicant contacted the command either verbally or in writing. Furthermore, t he Applicant did not provide a copy of the letter he sent to the command or any documentation that he submitted a request to be discharged for financial hardship or proof of financial hardship . The Board determined the Applicant failed to balance his efforts with FedEx-Kinkos and the Navy Reserve Command and fulfill his obligation to the United States Government , and t he characterization of service and narrative reason for separation were warranted.

Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s s ummary of s ervice, r ecord e ntries, and d ischarge p rocess, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation sha ll remain UNSAT PARTICIPATION IN READY RESERVE .

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of his discharge. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically the paragraphs titled Additional Reviews, Automatic Upgrades, and Post-Service Conduct .

ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant

Complaint Procedures : If you believe 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 : 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. 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. There are veterans organizations such as the American Legion and the Association of Service Disable Veterans that are willing to provide guidance to former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted 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 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB. 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.

Employment/Educational Opportunities : The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. Regulations limit the NDRB’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 BCNR can make changes to reenlistment codes. Additionally, the NDRB 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 is processed subsequently for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended 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 BCNR can grant this type of narrative reason change.

Automatic Upgrades - There is no law or regulation that provides for an unfavorable discharge to be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct subsequent to leaving naval service.

Post-Service Conduct : The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. Outstanding post-service conduct, 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, is considered during Board reviews. Documentation to support a post-service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s birth certificates (if applicable); character witness statements; documentation of community or church service; certification of non-involvement with civil authorities; evidence of financial stability or letters of good standing from banks, credit card companies, or other financial institutions; attendance at or completion of higher education (official transcripts); and documentation of a drug-free lifestyle. 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 in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

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 NDRB 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 | 2011_Navy | ND1101290

Original file (ND1101290.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, record entries, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain UNSATPARTICIPATION IN READY RESERVE.The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance...
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 | 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 | 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...
USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501094

Original file (MD0501094.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. You are now required to drill while on TNPQ. You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “ http://Boards.law.af.mil ” .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
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900818

Original file (ND0900818.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Board determined the evidence of post-service conduct was not sufficient enough to warrant an upgrade of his discharge characterization. The Board determined the characterization of service received, General (Under Honorable Conditions), was an appropriate characterization and with limited post-service documentation 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...
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 | 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 | 2009_Navy | ND0901012

Original file (ND0901012.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Additionally, the Board determined that based on a review of the record, statement and evidence of the Applicant an upgrade in the characterization of service is not warranted. ” 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...
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...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901266

Similar Decisions