Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301166

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

ex-OSSN, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20130506

Characterization of Service Received:

Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:         NONE              Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20050616     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20090720      Highest Rank/Rate: OSSN
Length of Service:
         Inactive:        Y ear( s ) M onth( s ) 05 D a y ( s )
         Active   Y ear( s ) M onth( s ) 00 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: NFIR
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:          Rehabilitation/Treatment:                  Criminal Records:
         Personal Documentation :          Community Service:                References:
         Department of VA letter:                  Oth er Documentation:
                  Additional Statements :
         From Applicant:          From /To Representation:          From /To Congress m ember :

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 26, effective 3 April 2009 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 .

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.        The Applicant would like to enlist in the Army Reserve .
2.       The Applicant contends her post-service conduct warrants consideration for an upgrade.
3.       The Applicant contends her reserve unit moved and yet no one told her or other unit members where they were moving to, and so her discharge was just a misunderstanding.
4.       The Applicant contends her Separation Code of JHJ does not match her narrative reason of Unsatisfactory Participation in the Ready Reserve.

Decision

Date : 20 1 4 0109             Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation :

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 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 . T he Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances that led to discharge and the discharge process to ensure discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service included her administrative separation for U nsatisfactory P articipation in the Navy R eserve. The Applicant’s record shows a period of unexcused absences from mandatory drills from April 2006 until January 2009. Based on the Applicant’s unsatisfactory participation , command administratively processed for separation. The Applicant’s command sent her a certified letter of notification for administrative separation to her last known address , however, the Applicant did not respond to the letter and did not acknowledge her rights in the administrative separation process. The Applicant was discharged in absentia on 20 July 2009 with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization for Unsatisfactory Participation in the Ready Reserve.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant would like to enlist in the Army Reserve. Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, the NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code. Only the B oard for Correction of Naval Records can make changes to reenlistment codes. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhanci ng reenlistment opportunities.

Issue 2: (Decisional) (Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant contends her post-service conduct warrants consideration for an upgrade. The NDRB considers 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. The Applicant provided a personal statement, a college transcript, and two character references. The Applicant could have provided documentation as detailed in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum , however, completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post-service conduct establishes that the in-service misconduct was an aberration. T he Board determined the documentation submitted by the Applicant does not demonstrate if in-service misconduct was an aberration. The characterization of service received was appropriate considering the length of service and missed drills . Relief denied.

Issue 3: (Decisional) (Propriety/Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant contends her reserve unit moved and yet no one told her or other unit members where they were moving to, and so her discharge was just a misunderstanding. She also contends she contacted Navy Personnel Command, who told her she was inactive, and so she stopped looking for her unit. The Applicant had an obligation to attend required reserve drills. The NDRB determined the Applicant’s explanation for why she missed required drill periods does not mitigate her failure to attend those drill periods and further determined an upgrade is not warranted. Relief denied.

Issue 4: (Decisional) (Propriety) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant contends her Separation Code of JHJ does not match her narrative reason of Unsatisfactory Participation in the Ready Reserve. The Applicant submitted documentation from an Army Reserve recruiter that states that a Separation Code of JHJ stands for Unsatisfactory Performance and not Unsatisfactory Participation in the Ready Reserve. The Separation Code of JHJ is correct. Per Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 26, effective 3 April 2009 until Present, MILPERSMAN Article 1910-158, SEPARATION BY REASON OF UNSATISFACTORY PARTICIPATION IN THE READY RESERVE , the Separation Code when a Sailor is administratively discharged for unsatisfactory participation in the Navy Reserve is JHJ where the Sailor is not entitled to an administrative separation board. Because the Applicant had served less than six years and was not being recommended for an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization of service, she was not entitled to an administrative separation board. The Separation Code of JHJ is correct and will not be changed. Relief denied.

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 shall remain . The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of discharge. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum for additional information.

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 Disabled American 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 their opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 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 | 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 | 2014_Navy | ND1400916

Original file (ND1400916.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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 Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include...
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600389

Original file (ND0600389.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

I would like the board to please review my case and give me am upgrade of honorable and a reenlistment code of RE-1.Sincerely, (Applicant’s rank and signature) PO3 M_ R_ (Applicant) ” Issues as stated on an additional attached letter also dated December 4, 2005:I would like to respond to the statement of the commanding officer J. E. R_. 050318: Commanding Officer, Naval Air Reserve, Fort Worth, notified Commander, Navy Personnel Command (PERS-913), that the Applicant was discharged on...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101765

Original file (ND1101765.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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. There is no requirement or...
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 | 2013_Navy | ND1301889

Original file (ND1301889.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

On 28 March 2012, Commander, Navy Personnel Command (PERS 913) directed NOSC Houston to discharge the Applicant with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service for Unsatisfactory Participation in the Ready Reserve with a Reenlistment Code of RE-4 (Not Recommended for Reenlistment) and a Separation Code of JHJ (No Board Entitlement). Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries,...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101090

Original file (ND1101090.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:NONE Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20051215Age at Enlistment:39Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20070216Highest Rank/Rate:AZ3Length of Service:Year(s)Month(s) 05 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 88EvaluationMarks:Performance:NFIRBehavior:NFIROTA: NFIRAwards and Decorations :Periods of UA/CONF: NJP:SCM:SPCM:CC:Retention...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101181

Original file (ND1101181.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.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 UNSATISFACTORY PARTICIPATION.The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen...
NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1401760

Original file (ND1401760.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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 remain UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL) and the narrative reason for separation shall remain UNSATISFACTORY PARTICIPATION. ” Additional Reviews : After a...
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...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301166

Similar Decisions