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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

  ex-CE3, USNR
Docket No. ND05-00079

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20041018.  The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests 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 20050908.  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 and reason for discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“My discharge is inequitable because it is based on (2) incidents in overs 60 months of service.”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s Privacy Release Form for Congressman D_’s office, dated August 31, 2004
Applicant’s letter to Congressman D_, dated August 31, 2004 (2 pages)
Tennessee Air National Guard, Hdqts 134th Air Refueling Wing letter to Congressman D_, dated August 11, 2004
Knox County Sheriff, Chief R_ P. B_’s letter to Congressman D_, dated August 3, 2004
City of Crossville, Fire Department, Fire Chief M_ W. T_’s letter to Congressman D_, dated July 22 2004
Knox County Sheriff’s, Lt. D_ M_’s letter to Congressman D_, dated August 11, 2004
Knox County Sheriff’s memorandum, dated August 29, 2004, nominating Applicant for Officer of the Month
Certificate of Certification, Knox County Sheriff’s Office, dated July 9, 2003
Certification of Applicant’s checking account, dated April 11, 2003
Applicant’s Arrest Record, dated April 28, 2003
Certificate of Outstanding Physical Achievement, for Physical Readiness Test of March 1996
Letter of Commendation, Commander, Submarine Squadron One, Outstanding Performance Citation (April to May 1996), serving onboard the USS William H. Bates
Submarine Qualification Certificate, dated June 6, 1996
Certificate of Completion, Petty Officer Indoctrination Course, dated June 6, 1996
Good Conduct Award, dated September 6, 1997
Letter of Commendation, Commander, Submarine Squadron One, Outstanding Performance Citation (April to September 1998), serving onboard the USS William H. Bates
Enlisted Application & Orders To A Naval Reserve Unit Termination/Modification 9NAVRES 1828/2) service record page, dated April 1, 2003
Commander, Navy Personnel Command’s letter March 24, 2003 (Separation Authority)
Administrative Remarks (NAVPERS `1070/613) service record page, dated April 1, 2003

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  None
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  19940416		Date of Discharge:  20030401

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  11  28  
	Inactive:  04  11  17  

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  None
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  17 (Parental Consent)

Years Contracted:  8 years (4 years of active duty in the Regular Navy Component.)

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  68

Highest Rate:  CE3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  4.00 (2)	Behavior:  4.50 (2) 	OTA:  4.00  (5.0 evals)
Performance:  3.7 (2)	Behavior:  3.7 (2)	OTA:  3.7    (4.0 evals)

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  National Defense Service Medal, Letter of Commendation, Good Conduct Medal, Navy Expeditionary Medal

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/UNSATISFACTORY PARTICIPATION IN THE READY RESERVE, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-158 (formerly 3630800).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

940416:	Applicant enlisted in the Naval Reserve for a term of 8 years under the Delayed Entry Enlistment Program (DEP) and 4 years active duty in a regular component of the U.S. Navy.

940907:	Regular Navy component for term of 4 years commenced this date.

980904:	Applicant released from active duty and transferred to the Naval Reserve having served 3 years 11 months and 28 days of his active duty commitment.  Service was characterized as “honorable.”

980905:	Applicant commenced remaining inactive reserve time as an active drilling reservist.

981029:	Assigned to NR NMCB 24 Det 0624 at N&MCRC Knoxville.

990628:	Reporting for active duty for training (acdutra) and released from acdutra on 990710.

030324:	CNPC directed the Applicant's discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve.

030401:	Applicant discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve.

Service Record did not contain the Administrative Discharge package. 
Service Record was missing elements of the Summary of Service.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20030401 by reason of unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve (A) with a service characterization of general (under honorable conditions).  After a thorough review of the available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (B and C).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (D).

In the absence of a complete discharge package and service record, the NDRB presumed the Applicant committed the misconduct for which he was separated, that the separation processing was accomplished in strict accordance with applicable regulations, and that his characterization of service is both proper and equitable.  The Applicant contends that his missed drills were a result of poor organization and professionalism at his Naval Reserve component.  There is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs.  The Applicant bears the burden of establishing his issues through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to contradict the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.  The contention that the Applicant’s missed drills were the result of disorganization on the part of the Naval Reserve, is not supported by the evidence of record.  The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.  Relief denied.

The Applicant contends that his discharge is inequitable because it is based on a two isolated incidents in 60 months of total service.  Applicable regulations require that a Sailor’s characterization of service be based upon the member’s total performance of duty and conduct during the current enlistment.  Furthermore, there are circumstances where conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single adverse incident may form the basis of characterization for a Sailor’s overall service.  The incident need not result in formal punishment to be properly used to characterize a Sailor’s service.  The Applicant concedes he committed misconduct on two separate occasions by failing to attend prescribed drills.  As such, the NDRB concluded that there is nothing improper or inequitable in basing the Applicant’s characterization of service as a drilling reservist on the fact that he failed to attend his required drills.  Relief denied.  

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 could 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.  The Board received and considered all of the Applicant’s submissions, including his letters of recommendation, meritorious achievements, evidence of financial responsibility, police records check, and service related documents.  After careful consideration, the Board concluded the Applicant’s post-service achievements have been insufficient to mitigate his misconduct while in the Naval service.  Relief denied.

Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code.  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.

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.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 Aug 2002 until Present, MILPERSMAN Article 1910-158 (formerly 3630800), 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 V, Para 502, Propriety.

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity.

D.   Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

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 “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
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023