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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

 ex-STG3, USN
Docket No. ND05-01105

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050622.  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 20060224.  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 convenience of the government due to parenthood or custody of minor children.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“I think my general/under honorable conditions discharge was unfairly given in place of an honorable discharge.  I was not advised prior to separation that I would be ineligible for my MGIB, or I would have contested the discharge type.  I was actually told that my discharge was the same as an honorable and would be automatically upgraded in six months from my date of separation.  I was married, became pregnant, and was unable to provide childcare for extended periods of time, because my husband is active duty navy at sea, as is my father.  There were no other alternatives, as my paperwork for discharge showed.  I could not be returned to sea duty, and the Navy (and whomever makes these decisions), opted to separate me instead of billeting me to shore duty-which I was willing and able to do.  I was surrounded by other pregnant servicewomen, and the few I’ve contacted since have told me they received honorable discharges.  I don’t know why I received a general discharge, but I think it was unfair and unwarranted.  I have stayed home as a wife and mother since my discharge and have only now realized the impact this has on my future.  It was brought to my attention when I applied for my GI Bill to start college courses.  I would like to obtain a college education to better serve my family when my children enter kindergarten.  I am requesting that my discharge be upgraded to honorable.”

Documentation

Only the service and medical records were reviewed.  The Applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board’s consideration.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	20000119 – 20000130		COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  20000131		Date of Discharge:  20030303

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  01  04  
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:	None
	Confinement:			None

Age at Entry:  18

Years Contracted:  4 (24 month extension)

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  90

Highest Rate:  STG3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.67 (3) 		Behavior:  2.75 (4) 		OTA:  2.89

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  National Defense Service Medal.

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PARENTHOOD OR CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILDREN, authority:  MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-124 (formerly 3620215).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

000517:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (VUCMJ, Article 92-Disobeying a lawful order or regulation.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

010411:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92:  On 010409 fail to obey lawful order by being in a males BEQ room.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $500.00 pay per month for 1 month, restriction to FLEASWTRACEN for 7 days, extra duty for 7 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

021212:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 107:  False official statements.
Award:  Reduction to next inferior pay grade (suspended for 6 months).  No indication of appeal in the record.

021212:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Commanding Officer’s NJP on 021212 for violation of the UCMJ, Article 107-false official statement.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

030303:	DD Form 214:  Applicant discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of parenthood or custody of minor child, per MILPERSMAN 1910-124.

Service Record did not contain the Administrative Discharge package.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20030303 by reason of convenience of the government due to parenthood or custody of minor children (A) with a service characterization of general (under honorable conditions).  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 (B and C).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (D).

Under applicable regulations, separations based on parenthood or custody of minor children should be honorable unless a general (under honorable conditions) or an entry-level separation is warranted.  A general discharge may be warranted if the Applicant’s service contains records of nonjudicial punishments, disciplinary actions, or if other significant negative aspects existed, which outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s period of service.  Additionally, a general discharge may be warranted if the Applicant’s performance evaluation averages are not sufficient to merit an honorable discharge.  The Applicant’s record indicates that she received a NAVPERS 1070/613 counseling/retention warning on 2000517 for a violation of UCMJ Article 92, failure to obey order or regulation.  Additionally, the Applicant was awarded nonjudicial punishments on 20010411 for a violation of UCMJ Articles 92, and NJP again on 20021212 for a violation of UCMJ Article 107, false official statement.  The Applicant received a second retention warning on 20021212.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of her service, reflects her willful failure to meet the requirements of her contract with the U.S. Navy.  Such conduct falls far short of that expected of a member of the U.S. military and does not meet the requirements for an upgrade of her characterization of service.  Relief is not warranted.

The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Naval Discharge Review Board.  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.  Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.  

The Applicant states that she was told that after six months she could have her discharge upgraded.  There is no law or regulation that authorizes a discharge to be automatically upgraded after six months.  A former service member has 15 years, from the date of discharge, to petition the Board for consideration of an upgrade.  The Board does not automatically upgrade a discharge after six months.  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.  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, Article 1910-124 (previously 3620215), Separation by reason of Convenience of the Government - Parenthood.

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, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs.  

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