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

 ex-AA, USN
Docket No. 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.  The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing.  The applicant designated the Shelby County Veterans Services as the representative on the DD Form 293.  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.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020130.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service.  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

1.  I am writing this letter to request an upgrade on my re-code and discharge status.  I would like my discharge to be honorable instead of general under honorable conditions, so that I can re-enlist.  In this letter I am going to explain why I made the choices that I made before I was discharged.

Documentation

In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:

Copy of DD Form 214
Applicant's Letter of Explanation as stated in the Issues, dtd 9 July 01 (5 pages)
Shelby County  Veterans Services ltr dtd Jul 9, 2001

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	990226 - 990301	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  990302		Date of Discharge:  991101

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  08  00
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  20			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12+		AFQT:  36

Highest Rate:  AA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  1.0 (1)	Behavior:  1.0 (1)		OTA:  1.00 (5.0 eval)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  10

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:

990902:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (failure to adequately provide child care for your children), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

991005:	Unauthorized absence from USS ENTERPRISE (CVN 65) at Newport News.

991015:	Surrendered onboard USS ENTERPRISE (CVN 65), Newport New, VA (10 days).

991011:	Memo documenting applicant's inability to provide adequate childcare.

991021:	Endorsement of Applicant's request for discharge due to pregnancy and a brief history of applicant's child care problem.

991101:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a general (under honorable conditions by reason of convenience of the government due to pregnancy.

991101:	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

000324:	Commanding Officer, USS ENTERPRISE, advised CNPC of applicant's discharge on 1 November 1999 with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of pregnancy.  Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim):  "In September 1999, AA (Applicant) requested separation from the navy due to parenthood; however, she was denied because she did not have legal custody of her children.  On 5 October 1999, AA (Applicant) commenced a period of unauthorized absence due to her inability to care for her children, and she returned on 15 October 1999.  AA (Applicant) has been an administrative burden to the command since her arrival on 18 June 1999.  She is involved in a court battle for custody of her children, her husband is incarcerated for three years, and she has experienced numerous financial difficulties.  On 31 October 1999, AA (Applicant) was taken to Riverside Hospital, Newport News, Virginia.  At that time, it was discovered that she was pregnant, and she requested separation as a result.  Accordingly, I separated AA (Applicant) on 1 November 1999 for pregnancy with a characterization of General (Under Honorable Conditions).  I determined that AA (Applicant)'s separation was in the best interest of the Navy, and she demonstrated compelling factors of personal need that warranted separation."

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 991101 with a general (under honorable conditions) for convenience of the government due to pregnancy (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.  The NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Naval Service or any other branch of the Armed Forces.  A request for waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.  Relief is therefore denied.

The Board found that the applicant had a history of poor performance during her brief tour in the Navy as evidenced by her performance evaluations.  The applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects her service to her country.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or injustice occurred during the applicant’s enlistment.  Additionally, 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 the service.  However, she is reminded that she remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of her discharge.  The applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.  Legal representation at a personal appearance hearing is highly recommended but not required.  Relief denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 12 Dec 97 until Present, Article 1910-112 (previously 3620220), Separation by Reason of Convenience of the Government - Pregnancy or Childbirth.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.  

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.

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 "afls10.jag.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:

		Naval Council of Personnel Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023