Author: CAP
Last saved by: joyce.meeks
Company: NCPB

Docket No. ND05-01287

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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-CMCN, USN
Docket No. ND05-01287

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050727.  The Applicant requested that her narrative reason for separation be changed to “Hardship”.  The Applicant requested a documentary record review and did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20060406.  After a thorough review of all available 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 reason for discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain Honorable by reason of convenience of the government due to parenthood or custody of minor children.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“I am a veteran who served the U.S. Navy for more than two years.  I was discharged on the basis of parenthood, which was the result of a rape within my chain of command.  My only request is to be granted my deserved G.I. Bill.  I was a good serviceman and never intended discharge.

Documentation

The Applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board’s consideration.  Therefore, only the service and medical record were considered:

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	20020410 – 20020710		COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  20020711		Date of Discharge:  20040914

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02 02 04  
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  none
	Confinement:		  none

Age at Entry:  18 

Years Contracted:  4 (12 month extension)

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  82

Highest Rate:  CMCN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.0 (2) 		Behavior:  3.5 (2) 		OTA:  3.16 (2) 

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  Presidential Unit Citation, Navy “E” Ribbon, National Defense Service Medal, Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, Marksmanship Ribbon (M16).

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

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

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

040804:	Applicant notified of the intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of parenthood.

040804:	Applicant advised of rights, elected not to consult with counsel and to waive all rights.

040812:	Commanding Officer, THIRTY-FIRST Seabee Readiness Group recommended to Commander, Naval Personnel that CMCN C_ (Applicant) be discharged by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of Parenthood.  Commanding Officer’s comments:  “Strongly recommend approval.  CMCN C_ (Applicant) is unable to perform her regular military duties due to lack of satisfactory childcare.”  This letter listed the Applicant’s Family Care Plan Certificate and NAVPERS 1070/613 as enclosures.

040910:	CNPC directed the Applicant's discharge with type warranted by service record by reason of parenthood or custody of minor child.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20040914 by reason of convenience of the government due to parenthood or custody of minor children (A) with a service characterization of honorable.  After a thorough review of all 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).

The Applicant requested that her narrative reason for separation be changed to “hardship”.  The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant's discharge, will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted.  In the Applicant’s case the Naval Military Personnel Manual, Article 1910-124 (separation by reason of parenthood or custody of minor children) states that a member may be separated if he or she is unable to perform their military duties because of parenthood.  Hence the narrative reason assigned at discharge.  The Applicant was properly notified of her intended discharge by reason of parenthood, she elected not to consult counsel and elected to waive her rights.  The separation process was presumed to be in strict compliance with the Naval Military Personnel Manual Article 1910-124.  For the edification of the Applicant the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation, except to “Secretarial Authority”.  Additionally, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the Applicant meets the stringent requirements of a hardship discharge.  To change the narrative reason for separation would be inappropriate.  Relief denied.

In the absence of a complete service record the Board presumed regularity of governmental affairs.  The Board presumed that the Applicant’s discharge was conducted in strict compliance with reference (A) resulting in a characterization of service of honorable by reason of parenthood or custody of minor children.  The record did contain documentation of COMNAVPERSCOM’s direction for discharge, Commander Thirty-First Seabee Readiness Group (which references the missing Family Care Plan Certificate and NAVPERS 1070/613), the Applicant’s acknowledgement and waiver of rights.   If the Applicant feels her discharge was administratively flawed she bears the burden of establishing her issues through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence.  Relief not warranted.

The Applicant requested her G.I. Bill benefits.  There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization based on the issue of obtaining Veterans' benefits.  Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the purpose of enhancing medical, housing, employment or educational opportunities.  This issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.  Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.  Relief not warranted.  

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 her discharge at that time.  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 19 May 2005, 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