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

 ex-SN, USNR
Docket No. ND04-00953

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20040525.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions.  The Applicant requests a documentary record review.  The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20041015.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB.  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.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “I had completed and submitted paperwork for a GENERAL DISCHARGE/UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS to the personnel supervisor of N7MCRC Amarillo, TX when the R.A.M.P. program that I had signed on to was not successful.  I was advised by the senior enlisted personnel of my unit and by the Commanding Officer, D_ J_ G_, of the N&MCRC Amarillo, TX that I was eligible for this type of discharge.  I have enclosed a more detailed overview of events.

I am submitting this request, in an attempt to upgrade the Other Than Honorable discharge (by reason of unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserves) that was issued on 06FEB93, to a General Discharge under Honorable conditions.  I feel that this request is reasonable based on the fact that the R.A.M.P.(Reserve Allied Medical Program) that I was contracted to failed miserably and that several reservist in my unit with situations similar to mine were granted General Discharges.  I understand that it was my sole responsibility to follow up with the US Naval Reserves to ensure that I had been given the appropriate discharge.  I also accept the responsibility that my delayed response may make this request more difficult to get processed.  I did not know until recently (March 02,2004) that I had been given an Other Than Honorable discharge.  I was made aware of this when I tried to reenlist in the US Naval Reserves and was informed by the recruiter NC1 Coffey of my discharge and ineligibility for re-enlistment I also accept that I was wrong to assume that I had been given a General Discharge, when in fact, unknown to me, I had received an Other Than Honorable discharge.
In closing, I respectfully request your consideration in the matter of upgrading my discharge to General/Under Honorable conditions, so that I can continue to become an even bigger asset to the community I serve and hopefully to the US Naval Reserves.

I am requesting an upgrade of my discharge from the United States Naval Reserves.  I was given an OTHER THAN HONORABLE discharge due to “Unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserves”.  I was unaware that I bad received this type of discharge until March 02, 2004, when I was attempting to re-enlist in the Naval Reserves and had my prior service discharge paperwork sent to the Navy recruiter.  I was supposed to have received GENERAL DISCHARGE-UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS.  However, my prior service paperwork showed that I had been discharged on FEB 06, 1993 with an Other Than Honorable discharge.

I feel that this discharge was not appropriate.  I had been given the option to process out of the Reserves and receive the General Discharge due to the failure of the RA.M.P. (Reserve Allied Medical Program) and due to a work conflict.  This option was given to several of the R.A.M.P. personnel that were in the same situation that I was in, and they were discharged with the General Discharge.  Prior to requesting the discharge, I had requested to go active duty and was denied due to my contractual obligation to the RAMP program.  I felt my only choice then was to process out of the Naval Reserves.

The following is a brief overview of my USNR experience:
I joined the U.S.  Naval Reserves on Jan 28, 1989 and was contracted to the R.A.M.P.  program for reservists.  I was sent to boot camp on Aug 22, 1989 and to an A-school immediately after boot camp.  I completed both in the later part of Oct 1989 and returned to Amarillo.  I began drilling at the N&MCRC on Nov 20, 1989.  I continued to drill while I started school at Amarillo College to become a Medical Lab. Technician.  During this time, the R.A.M.P. program did not meet the expectations of the USNR for reasons unknown to me and the program was closed.  When this program went away, I was left without a Hospital Corpsman rating and bad no useful skills for deployment with my unit.  I consulted the officers and senior enlisted personnel of my unit for a resolution to my problem.  I was advised to go to school and acquire some type of medical training that would be useful to the unit that I was assigned.  I enrolled in the Paramedicine program at Amarillo College at my own expense.  I was told that this would look good at evaluation time and would show personal initiative that could help keep me assigned to the medical unit that I had been attached to since returning from boot camp and A-school.  I began school in the Fall of 1990 and continued to drill and work a full time job and two part-time jobs in order to pay for school and living expenses.  On July 29, 1991 I reported for my annual 12 days of active duty training, which I successfully completed.  I began having difficulty with my drill, work and school schedule and in the Fall of 1991 I requested a six month “non-drill” status to complete Paramedic school.  Upon completion of Paramedic school and receiving my Texas Dept. of Health certification as a Paramedic, I requested to go to an active duty status and was denied due to my contractual obligation to the RA.M.P. program (the program which had already proven to be a failure).

I began applying for a full time position as Field Paramedic at Amarillo Medical Services and was hired in May of 1992.  I immediately began having a work conflict with drill weekends I was recommended for 12 days of ADT (active duty training) due to missed drill weekends.  While on my ADT, I spoke with senior enlisted personnel and officers of my unit about my work conflict and was told about the option for General Discharge due to the poor outcome of the R.A.M.P. program.  I then spoke with the Commanding Officer of the N&MCRC, Lt. CMDR D. J. G_, about my option to process out under the General Discharge, and she confirmed what I had been told by officers in my unit.  She directed me to PN2 B_ USNR(TAR), personnel supervisor for the Naval Reserve center in Amarillo.  I completed the paperwork for my discharge and was assured by PN2 B_ that I was out of the reserves and would not be required to drill anymore considering my current work conflict and pending discharge.  I asked PN2 B_ if I would need to go into the I.R.R.  (Individual Ready Reserves) until my discharge was complete, he again advised me that this would not be necessary considering my pending discharge.  I was also told by PN2 B_ that the paperwork process would take a while and I would be contacted if any additional paperwork was needed.  I left my mothers address with him to ensure he would be able to contact me if needed.

I am currently in the process of finishing my degree to become a Registered Nurse; I am also applying for medical school in May of this year.  I have also been asked to become a team member of the Lubbock STAR (Special Tactics and Rescue) team as a tactical paramedic.  This team serves a vital role in the safety and treatment of injured victims, hostages, Law Enforcement Officers, and even suspects that may be injured during the deployment of the Lubbock Police Dept. SWAT or the Lubbock County Sheriff’s Office SWAT teams.  However, with an Other Than Honorable discharge these goals are unobtainable.  I realize that this situation is no ones fault but my own, because I did not follow up with the Reserves to ensure that I had been given the appropriate discharge.  I also accept the responsibility of my actions, or in this case, my lack of actions while I was much younger and more immature I assumed that all paperwork would be taken care of as I was told that it would be, and therefore I never checked on the status my discharge.

I now feel that I have matured and become a very productive member of the community in which I live.  I am currently employed as a field paramedic for Amarillo Medical Services and serve as a Lead Field Training Officer, I am employed as a flight paramedic for AeroCare critical air transport, I am a part-time instructor in the Paramedicine Technology Dept at Amarillo College, and I am still an active member of the regional CISD (Critical Incident Stress Debriefing) team.  I was a volunteer firefighter at Osage Volunteer Fire Dept for eight years and had achieved the rank of Captain before I left in order to concentrate on school.  I volunteered with the Amarillo Ind. School District in several different programs including H.O.S.T.  (Help One Student To Succeed) and Careers 2000, and I continue to participate in drunk driving awareness programs offered every year by the school district In addition to my jobs and my volunteer activities, I have continued to pursue a higher education for my self in hopes of becoming an even bigger asset to the community.

I plead with you, the members of the Naval Discharge Review Board, to consider my age, my poor judgment, and my obvious lack of maturity when I was processing out of the U.S. Naval Reserves.  I ask you to consider the upgrade of my Other Than Honorable discharge to a General Discharge under honorable conditions, so that I might complete my nursing degree and move onto medical school.  I would also request this upgrade for the purpose of re-enlistment into the U.S. Naval Reserves.”

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
Service record documents (7 pages)
Records information request

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR		None
	Active:   USN			None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  890128		Date of Discharge:  930206

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  02  27
	Inactive:  03  09  12

Age at Entry:  17			Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  75

Highest Rate:  SN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.75 (4)	Behavior:  3.85 (4)		OTA:  3.75

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.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

890128:	Enlistment contract into the USNR documents acknowledgement of the requirement to participate as prescribed by the regulations of the Naval Reserve the six year term in the Naval Reserve Selected Reserve (drilling obligation) and a two year term in the Naval Reserve Individual Ready Reserve (non-drilling obligation).

910708:	Applicant ordered to AT beginning 910729.

911001:	Applicant authorized six months non-drill status.

920416:	Applicant notified via certified letter of nomination for involuntary additional AT because of unsatisfactory participation and accrued unexcused absences from drills on 910926 and 920411-920412.  

921102:	Letter of intent to administratively separate with a least favorable characterization of under other than honorable conditions for the failure to participate in reserve training was sent via certified mail, return receipt requested.  The certified letter of intent was never claimed.  The separation process shall continue regardless of the failure to acknowledge official certified mail or if official certified mail is undeliverable to the member's last known address or the next of kin (MILPERSMAN 36402000).

921214:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of Unsatisfactory Participation in the Ready Reserve due to failure to attend drills.  Commanding Officer’s comments: “SN C_ is a mandatory driller who became unsatisfactory in his drill attendance.  SN C_ was authorized six months non-drill status, to complete school.  He became unsat within three months and was nominated for Additional AT.  SN C_ acknowledged his requirement to report for 12 days Additional AT on 24 August 1992.  SN C_ completed the 12 days Additional AT and immediately became unsatisfactory in his drill attendance for a second time.  SN C_ lives in Amarillo, TX, and N&MCRC Amarillo, TX, is within reasonable commuting distance but he refused to attend drills.  He claimed he had a work conflict and couldn’t attend drills.  But he has not requested transfer to the IRR due to work conflict.  SN C_ is simply ignoring the mandatory terms of his contract.  SN C_ was previously counseled in regard to drill performance.  By failing to drill he has further demonstrated his complete disregard for his contractual obligations.  It is determined that SN C_ has no potential for useful service in the event of mobilization.  It would be in the best interest of the U.S. Navy to discharge SN C_ as soon as possible.”

930203:	Deputy, Chief of Naval Personnel directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve as evidenced by failure to maintain satisfactory drill performance.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19930206 under other than honorable conditions for unsatisfactory participation in the Ready 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).

Issue 1:  Normally, to permit relief, an impropriety or inequity must have occurred during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question.  The Board discovered no impropriety after a review of Applicant’s case.  The Applicant’s contention that his chain of command and the personnel processing his discharge promised him a general discharge is without merit.  The evidence of record clearly indicates that the Applicant was warned for unexcused absences by his Commanding Officer.  The record further indicates that the Applicant was ordered to attend additional AT time as a rescheduled drill.  The Applicant completed the additional AT time, however, immediately thereafter became unsatisfactory in his drill attendance for a second time.  The NDRB recognizes that serving in the U.S. Naval Reserve is challenging.  Our country is fortunate to have men and women willing to endure the hardships and sacrifices required in order to serve their country.  It must be noted that many members of the Naval Reserve have civilian commitments similar to those of the Applicant.  Most of these members of the Naval Reserve are still able to serve honorably by attending their mandatory drill periods and therefore earn their honorable discharges.  In fairness to those members of the Naval Reserve who fulfill their obligations, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving Sailors receive no higher characterization than is due.  The NDRB found that the Applicant's service was equitably characterized.  Relief denied.

The NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Naval Service or any other branch of the Armed Forces.  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.  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.

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, however, 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 should be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider.  Relief denied.

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an 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 other evidence related to his discharge at that time.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

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 view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “afls14.jag.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:

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