ex-ABE3, USN-R

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20100407
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:	       19871025 - 19891024  	Active:		   19831025 - 19871024  
	-R   19930507 - 19990506  		USA-R	   20060524 - 20070620  HON

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  19990930	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20010111	Highest Rank/Rate:  ABE3
Length of Service:   Year(s)     Month(s)   22 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  59/42/43
Evaluation Marks:	Performance:  3.0 (1)	Behavior:  3.0 (1)	OTA:  3.00

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	SSDR WITH 1 BRONZE STAR, NUC (WITH 1 BRONZE STAR), NEM

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJP:  	SCM:  	SPCM:  	CC:  	

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:		Other Documentation:	
		Additional Statements:
	From Applicant:		From/To Representation:		From/To Congress member:	

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 26, effective 4 January 2000 until 21 August 2002, 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.	Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable, based on missing a physical exam while assigned to the IRR.

Decision

Date:  20110519		Location:  Washington D.C.	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 evidence submitted by the Applicant.  The Board conducted 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 records did reflect the Applicant had been placed on temporary not physically qualified (TPNQ) drill status on or about 20 Mar 2000 due to a dental condition.  On 7 Apr 2000, the Applicant was advised in writing that while assigned to TNPQ status he was required to report his medical status on a monthly basis to the reserve center medical department, respond to all official correspondence, and keep the command informed of any change in address.  On 11 Oct 2000, the Applicant’s command sent a certified letter to his address of record informing him that he had surpassed the maximum 180-day limit for TNPQ status and advised he had 15 days to respond to the command regarding his medical status before further administrative action would be taken.  The letter was returned as undeliverable by the U.S. Postal Service.  On 3 Nov 2000, another letter was sent attempting to inform the Applicant that he was now considered not physically qualified (NPQ) and was being administratively transferred to a voluntary training unit.  On 29 Nov 2000, the command sent another letter, via certified mail, to the Applicant attempting to notify him of processing for administrative separation due to exceeding 180 days TPNQ and making no attempt to rectify his medical readiness status, not keeping the command informed of his status, and not maintaining current contact information on file.  Based on these violations,  command administratively processed  for separation.  Since the Applicant’s address was not current and attempts to notify him of administrative separation processing via certified mail were returned undeliverable, the Applicant was considered by his command to have waived his rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review.  The Applicant was separated from the Navy Reserve on 11 Jan 2001 with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge due to Unsatisfactory Participation in the Ready Reserve.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable, based on missing a physical exam while assigned to the IRR.  The Board conducted a detailed examination of the Applicant’s records.  Evidence within the record shows that on 20 Mar 00 the Applicant was placed on TPNQ status and advised in writing (7 Apr 00) of his responsibility to report his medical status on a monthly basis to the reserve center medical department, respond to all official correspondence, and keep the command informed of any change in address.  After more than 180 days elapsed and with no updates from the Applicant, the command attempted numerous times to contact him via certified mail, which failed because he did not comply with orders given to him in April to maintain a current address on file.  Since the Applicant failed to obey the orders of his CO (violations of UCMJ Article 92), he was processed for administrative separation in accordance with MILPERSMAN chapter 1910-158 (Unsatisfactory Participation in the Ready Reserve).  After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances surrounding his separation, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

Summary:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service,  record entries and administrative separation process, 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), 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