Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01386
Original file (ND04-01386.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SN, USN
Docket No. ND04-01386

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20040902. The Applicant requests the 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 list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20050224. 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: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PREGNANCY OR CHILDBIRTH, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-112.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1. “To be able to find a job after graduating college.”

2. “I’m upgrading my discharge, because, when I was discharged, the chief I worked for at the time informed me of my discharge being honorable. I did nothing wrong at the time of my discharge therefore, I respectfully request an upgrade.”


Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214 Member-4
Applicant’s DD Form 214 Member-1


PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     981217 - 990111  COG
                  USNR (DEP)      970212 - 970808  ELS
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 990112               Date of Discharge: 011212

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 11 01                  [Does not exclude lost time]
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 31

 Highest Rate: SN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMA*                 Behavior: NMA             OTA: NMA

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NER, AFSM, SSDR

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 50

NMA* - No marks available for review

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PREGNANCY OR CHILDBIRTH, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-112.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

010123:  Applicant to UA and missed movement.
010211:  Applicant from UA.

010213:  Applicant to UA and missed movement.

010314:  Applicant from UA.

010504:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 010123 to 010211; Unauthorized absence from 010213 to 010314. Article 87: Missing movement on 010213.
         Award: Forfeiture of $100 per month for 1 month(s), restriction and for 60 days, RIR to E-2. RIR susp. 6 mos. No indication of appeal in the record.

010806:  Punishment awarded and suspended on 010504 vacated due to continued misconduct.

010806:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey a lawful written order by having sexual intercourse on board USS George Washington (CVN 73) on one or more occasions between on or about May 2001 to July 2001.
         Award: 60 days restriction and RIR to E-1. RIR susp. 6 mos. No indication of appeal in the record.

010912:  Applicant requested to be “discharged from the Navy.”

010924:  Applicant requested to be “released from active due to pregnancy.”

011212:  Commanding Officer directed the Applicant's general (under honorable conditions) discharge by reason of convenience of the Government due to pregnancy.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20011212 with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the Government due to pregnancy or childbirth (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, a procedural 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. 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. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. Relief is not warranted.

Issue 2. The Applicant states, “the chief I worked for at the time informed me of my discharge being honorable” and “I did nothing wrong at the time of my discharge.” The Applicant was discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) character of service. A general discharge is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member's military record. The Applicant’s service was marred by two nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 86, 87 and 92 of the UCMJ, to include an authorized absence of 40 days. Violations Articles 87 and 92 are considered serious offenses. Further, unauthorized absences in excess of 30 days are considered serious offenses. 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 and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of her characterization of service. Relief is 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, Change 33, effective 27 Aug 2001 until 21 Aug 2002, Article 1910-112, 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 II, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

C. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety .

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

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

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01416

    Original file (ND03-01416.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. [SERVICE RECORD DOES NOT CONTAIN APPLICANT’S REQUEST FOR DISCHARGE DUE TO PREGNANCY.] As the discharge decision is presumed, under law, to be correct, the Naval Discharge Review Board may affirm the original decision even if official records which it would normally be required to review as part of the discharge review process cannot be located.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00590

    Original file (ND03-00590.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-AA, USNDocket No. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. [Signed by the Applicant]” ________________________________________________________________________ Documentation Only the service and medical records were reviewed, as the Applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500911

    Original file (ND0500911.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed “From Convenience of the Government to Hardship.” The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. 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 names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01454

    Original file (ND04-01454.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requested the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION No indication of appeal in the record.010928: Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (violation of UCMJ Articles 86: Absence without leave and Article 87: Missing movement), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00947

    Original file (ND01-00947.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00947 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010717, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, she was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim): "In September 1999, AA (Applicant) requested separation from the navy due to parenthood;...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500891

    Original file (ND0500891.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Based upon the Applicant’s misconduct, there was nothing improper in the award of a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00402

    Original file (ND99-00402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00402 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990128, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Character Reference letter of Jan 15, 1999 (family member) Character Reference letter of Jan 15, 1999 (family member) 2 Statements by the Applicant to the Board dated...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00091

    Original file (ND02-00091.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Letter from Applicant Copies of DD Form 214 (4) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 000128 - 000207 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 000208 Date of Discharge: 010327 Length of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001983

    Original file (ND1001983.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks an upgrade to enlist in the Reserves.2. ” 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. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800847

    Original file (ND0800847.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, after a complete review of the entire record, including the evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board determined that the discharge was appropriate in light of the nature of the Applicant’s misconduct, and that the evidence of post-service conduct was not sufficient to convince the Board that an upgrade was appropriate at this time.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence...