Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0601017

Original file (ND0601017.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-FA, USN
ND06-01017

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request :

Application Received:                               20 060728
Narrative Reason for Separation:
Character of Service:
Discharge Authority :                                MILPERSMAN 1910-124
Last Duty Assignment/ Command at Discharge:       SIMA SAN DIEGO, CA

Applicant’s Request:
         Narrative Reason change to:                HARDSHIP
         Characterization chang e to:                NOT APPLICABLE
         Review Requested :
Representation:

Decision:

Date of Decision:                                            20 070621
Location of Board:                                  Washington D.C.
Complete Service Record:
Complete Medical Record:
Complete Discharge Package:

Regarding propriety, the Board found the discharge:
Regarding equity, the Board found the discharge:

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .

Summary of Service :

Prior Service:
Inactive: USNR (DEP)                                19970422-19971229 COG
Active:                                    NONE

Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment:                                 19971230
Years Contracted :                                   ;
Date of Discharge:                                  19990825
Length of Service:                                  01 Yrs 07 Mos 26 Days (does not exclude lost time, if any)
Time Lost During This Period:                      NONE

Education Level:
Age at this Enlistment:                                     19
AFQT:                                                 55
Highest Rate/Rank:                                   FA

Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks): NOT FOUND IN RECORD

Awards and Decorations (as listed on the DD Form 214): NONE

Service Record Entries Related to Characterization of Service or Narrative Reason for Separation

19980506:        Applicant joined for duty aboard USS FRANK CABLE (AS-40), Homeport: Guam.

199 81217:        Applicant TEMDU to COMNAVMARIANAS TRANSITPERSU.

19990105:        Applicant married in Hagatna, Guam, to M_ S. B_, active duty member of U.S. Navy.
         [Extracted from RED/Dependency Application dated 19990 0107 .]

Not dated:       Applicant began using married name on official documents.

19990326:        Applicant joined for duty with SIMA, San Diego.

19990410:        Counseling: Applicant counseled on Navy Family Care Policy, received Family Care Plan Checklist, Information and Referral Packet. Family Care Plan due date 19990725.

19990609:        Applicant gave birth to dependent daughter.
         [Extracted from RED/Dependency Application dated 19990713.]

19990712:        Applicant submitted signed Family Care Plan Certificate with Blocks 1-7, 9-11 marked “Do Not Comply ; ” Family Care Plan Arrangements form with Blocks 1-4 marked “Do Not Comply;” and Family Care Plan Checklist marked “Do Not Comply.”

19990712:        Applicant certified in writing having been counseled on , and acknowledged understanding of, Navy policy on dependent care responsibilities and potential consequences for failure to make and maintain adequate Family Care Plan. Applicant certified that she was not worldwide available and had completed OPNAV Form 1740/6 affirming that she was not available.

Medical Record Entries Related to Characterization of Service or Narrative Reason for Separation

Record not available.

Elements of Discharge: [ IN VOLUNTARY]

Discharge Process :                                  NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE
Date Notified :                                        19990811
Reason for Processing:                               CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT -
Least Favorable Characterization:

Date Applicant R esponded to N otification:                 19990811
Rights E lected at N otification :
Consult with Counsel
Administrative Board
Obtain Copies
Submit Statement(s)
GCMCA Review

Administrative Board Date:                         NOT APPLICABLE
Commanding Officer R ecommendation (date):        HONORABLE (990812)
Separation Authority (date):                        BUPERS PERS-254 ( NOT FOUND IN RECORD )
         Narrative reason directed :                          NOT FOUND IN RECORD
         Characterization directed:                         NOT FOUND IN RECORD
Date Applicant Discharged:                         19990825

Additional Information Considered by Board

Type of d ocumentation submitted by t he Applicant and considered by the Board

        Document Type                                        #Pages
Related to Period of Service Under Review :
         Service/Medical Record :                            1
         Other Period of Service:                                    0
Related to Post-Service Period:
         Community Service :                                   0
         Education :                                           1
         Employment :                                          0
         Health /Medical :                                     0
         Character Statements:                               0
         Criminal Records Checks:                                    0
         Additional Statements from Applicant:             0
Other Documentation      (Describe Below)                 0

Total Number of Pages:                            2

D escription of Other Documentation: NONE

Applicant’s Issues as Summarized by the Board:
1. Discharge should be “hardship” because Applicant and spouse were due to deploy at same time and could not get childcare.

Decisional Issues:

Issue 1 ( ). While the Applicant may subjectively feel that her situation constituted a personal hardship, the facts and circumstances of her case did not meet the criteria for a “Hardship” discharge under applicable regulations. Rather, the facts and circumstances of the Applicant’s case fell squarely within the criteria for discharge based on “Convenience of the Government – Parenthood.” No other narrative reason more accurately describes the reason why the Applicant was discharged from the Navy. Therefore, no relief is warranted on this issue.

In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. The Board noted that the Applicant’s Notification of Administrative Separation indicated that she was entitled to an administrative discharge board; it should have been marked “not applicable” as the Applicant did not have 6 or more years of service. The Notification also indicated that the Applicant’s right to GCMCA review was “not applicable ” although the Separation Authority in her case was BUPERS Pers-254 because she had more than 1 year or more remaining on her obligated service. BUPERS Pers-254 action was not found i n the record; however , the Board found that the Applicant met the criteria for discharge on the basis of Parenthood and found no evidence of prejudice to the Applicant as a result of any procedural error or missing record. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service Record Entries, Medical Record Entries, Elements of Discharge and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable.

Minority Opinion

No t Applicable .

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C, Change 18, effective 12 Dec 1997 until 31 Aug 1998, 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 II , Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs , Part V, Para 502, Propriety and Para 503, Equity .

ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant

Complaint Procedures : 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 Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Instruction . 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 : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provi ded the 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 additional evidence related to this discharge. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years , has already been grante d a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted his 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 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.

Employment / Educational Opportunities : 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 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 Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes. Additionally, the Board 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 subsequently is processed for an administrative involuntary separation for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended. The Physical Evaluation Board case remains in suspense pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings. If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct, 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 “PTSD . ” Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records can grant this type of narrative reason change.

Automatic Upgrades - 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 may be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.

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 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.

Board Membership: 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 | 2006_Navy | ND0600268

Original file (ND0600268.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. ]030808: Commanding Officer, USS SPRUANCE (DD 963), recommended discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government - parenthood. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any post-service documentation for the Board to consider.
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500775

Original file (ND0500775.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ND05-00775 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050404. I was there for the Navy 24/7, please be there for me this one final time. The summary of service clearly documents that parenthood or custody of minor children was the reason the Applicant was discharged.
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000177

Original file (ND1000177.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

On 20 August 2001, the Separation Authority approved the recommendation for administrative separation and the Applicant was discharged under Honorable conditions with a re-enlistment code of RE-3B (Parenthood or custody of minor children a member is unable to perform prescribed duties, or unable to comply with family care plan requirements-Ineligible to reenlist without a Commander, Navy Recruiting Command waiver). Pursuant to the Commanding Officer’s recommendation for administrative...
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600019

Original file (ND0600019.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The discharge shall change to Honorable by reason of convenience of the government due to parenthood or custody of minor children. The Applicant contends her narrative reason should be characterized as convenience of the Government or hardship.
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501287

Original file (ND0501287.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requested that her narrative reason for separation be changed to “Hardship”. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (D).The Applicant requested that her narrative reason for separation be changed to “hardship”.
NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00570

Original file (ND01-00570.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 000718 with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the Government due to parenthood or custody of minor children (A). The applicant requested a discharge upgrade in order to obtain GI Bill benefits. Relief denied.Although the applicant had no other issues, after careful review of the applicant’s service record, the Board determined that the applicant was...
NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00158

Original file (ND02-00158.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Bill I was denied, so I am respectfully requesting to change my discharge code from convenience of Navy/parenting to a hardship discharge code so I will be able to receive my benefits.. I recommend that she be separated from the naval service by reason of parenthood with a Honorable Discharge." PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 991012 with an honorable by reason of convenience of the Government due to parenthood (A).
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500500

Original file (ND0500500.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or uncharacterized/entry level separation and the reason for the discharge be changed to “hardship (parenthood)”. The record further reveals that in reviewing the Applicant’s request a review of her service record indicated she should also be processed for misconduct – pattern of misconduct. The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this...
NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00255

Original file (ND04-00255.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION A person would need 30 months to receive benefits under C.O.G. 020828: Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (On 020827 you submitted a NAVPERS Form 1740/6 on which you indicated you could not comply with the requirements to provide a Family Care Plan).
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301682

Original file (ND1301682.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to:HARDSHIP Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)20040830 - 20050720Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20050721Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20080408Highest Rank/Rate: FC3Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 19 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 62EvaluationMarks:Performance:3.0(1)Behavior:3.5(2)OTA: 3.17Awards and Decorations (per DD...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0601017

Similar Decisions