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

ex-HA, USNR
Docket No. ND99-00415

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 990201, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 991213.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/UNSATISFACTORY PARTICIPATION IN THE READY RESERVE, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630800.

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the Record of Discharge from the U.S. Naval Reserve (NAVPERS 1070/615).  Type of Discharge should read:  “UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS” vice “HONORABLE”, Authority should read "MILPERSMAN 3630800" vice "3850300" and the Date of Discharge should read:  "18SEP91" vice "12SEP91".  The original Record of Discharge from the U.S. Naval Reserve (NAVPERS 1070/615) should be corrected or reissued as appropriate to reflect information contained on the Administrative Remarks (NAVPERS 1070/613) dated 91SEP18. 

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  I was sent a letter (which I no longer have) explaining that I was being discharged from the military because I wasn't reporting to my duty, when, in fact, I was put on "medical hold" because I threw up on my uniform unexpectedly.  Medical testing was performed on me on two different occasions.  I never did find out these results.  All I ever received was that letter discharging me.  I do not remember if it was a general or dishonorable but it was not a honorable.  I was proud to serve in the Navy.  I never dishonored by country.  I didn't care if I threw up.  I would have still reported to my duty but I was put on "medical hold".

Documentation

In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:

Copy of Applicant's letter to a Congressman

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):

	Active:    None
	Inactive:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  870630		Date of Discharge:  910918

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  03  15
	Inactive:  03  11  03

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  78

Highest Rate:  HA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.4 (2)	Behavior:  3.2 (2)		OTA:  3.2

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/UNSATISFACTORY PARTICIPATION IN THE READY RESERVE, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630800.  [Administratively corrected]

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

870630:	Enlistment contract into the USNR documents acknowledgement of the requirement to participate in six year term as a Selected Reserve (drilling obligation) and 2 year term in the Individual Ready Reserve (non-drilling obligation).

880611	Medical Record: report of seizures.  Referred to applicant’s private doctor.  Placed on medical hold.
900802:	Commanding officer, via certified letter, requested applicant provide additional medical information concerning questionable seizure activity.

901002:	Commanding officer, via certified letter, requested applicant provide additional medical information, concerning questionable seizure activity.

901121:	Naval Hospital Branch Clinic, NAS Glenview, IL advised CO, NAS, Glenview, that applicant failed to respond to requests for additional medical information in order to determine his physical fitness for retention/duty and requested that administrative action be initiated due to non-compliance.

910220:	Letter of intent to administratively separate under other than honorable conditions for the failure to participate in reserve due to failure to comply with requirements to provide this command with information regarding physical condition was sent via certified mail, return receipt requested.  The certified mail returned to sender.  

910522:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of unsatisfactory participation in the Naval Reserve due to failure to comply with requirement to provide the Medical Department with documentation pertaining to physical condition.  Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim):  "HN (Applicant) was afforded his rights with an opportunity to respond.  He failed to respond thereby waiving his rights.  He is determined to have minimal value to the Naval Service and it is recommended that he be separated with an Other Than Honorable discharge".

910830:	BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve as evidenced by failure to respond to two medical department letters.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 910918 under other than honorable conditions for unsatisfactory participation in the Naval Reserve (A).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B).  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).

Concerning the applicant’s issues, the Board found there was substantial evidence that the applicant was negligent in his duties.  After being placed on medical hold (Jun 1988), the applicant was referred to his civilian doctor for further diagnosis and treatment.  A full year later (13 May 1989), the applicant had a Navy physical.  The consultation sheet requests that an evaluation be conducted by a neurologist.  On 19 May 1989, the applicant was found not physically qualified for retention pending a neurology consult.  In August and October 1990 respectively, two certified letters were sent to the applicant requesting his medical status.  The applicant did not reply.  A year later, the applicant’s Commanding Officer informed the applicant he was being discharged with an Other Than Honorable discharge for failure to participate in the Ready Reserve per NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630800.  The applicant did not reply.  There was no documentation in his service record nor did the applicant provide any evidence indicating that the applicant was not responsible for his actions in failing to reply or that he was not provided all appropriate due process.  Relief denied.  The applicant is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge.  Relief denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), effective 15 Aug 91 until 04 Mar 93, Article 3630800, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF UNSATISFACTORY PARTICIPATION IN THE READY RESERVE.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.  

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.

PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT

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 Directive 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Directive.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive 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 obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to:

		DA Military Review Boards Agency
		Management Information and Support Directorate
		Armed Forces Reading Room
		Washington, D.C.  20310-1809

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:

		Naval Council of Personnel Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		Washington Navy Yard
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington, D.C.  20374-5023