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

          						 ex-Cpl, USMC
Docket No. MD02-00409

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020212, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant designated civilian counsel as her representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 021121.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety but did discern an inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall change to HONORABLE/ PARENTHOOD OR CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILDREN, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6203.1

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

Submitted by civilian counsel:

Dear Sir or Madam:

     Your Applicant, (name and social security number deleted), by and through her undersigned counsel, respectfully requests the characterization of service on her discharge be changed to Honorable, and in support of her request presents the following.

     The record reflects that the Applicant served from October 24, 1995 until February 10, 1999, when she was discharged with a General Discharge (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of convenience of the government due to parenthood.  MARCORSEPMAN PAR 6203.l. The reason given by her Commander for this characterization of service was failure to establish a child care plan IAW MCO 1740.13A. (App. 1).  However, factors beyond the Applicant's control prohibited her from establishing the required plan.

     The Applicant's child was born on October 11, 1998.  On October 15, 1998, the Applicant requested an early discharge for humanitarian reasons based on single-parent hardship.  The Applicant turned to her family for assistance, but neither her parents (App. 3) nor her grandmother (App. 4) were able to provide aid.  The response to her request was to receive counseling on November 6, 1998 concerning her responsibilities of being a single parent and maintaining a family care plan to assure availability for worldwide deployments and assignments.

     The Applicant obtained adequate care for her son with Ms. B_ G_ through a MCAS Beaufort Family Child Care referral. (App. 5) However, Ms. G_ later notified the Applicant and her other clients that she was accepting another position and would no longer provide daycare services as of December 18, 1998. (App. 6) The Applicant began a search for replacement child care and contacted the other twenty-one names on the MCAS Family Child Care referral list and an additional five referrals from Parris Island Family Child Care referral list. (App. 7) None of the listed providers on either list had vacancies.  A mere two days later, on December 20, 1998, the Applicant was notified of separation proceedings based on failure to establish a child care plan. (App. 1)

     During the Applicant's separation proceeding, the statements of her SNCOIC (App. 8) and OIC (App. 10) were presented in support of the administrative separation.  Her NCOIC stated that he had known the Applicant on two separate occasions, from March 1997 through November 1997, and again from January 12, 1998 through the date of his report (December 23, 1998.) MSgt C_ stated that her work assignments were always completed with satisfactory results and that he had no disciplinary problems with her.  He also rated her EXCELLENT to ABOVE AVERAGE when compared to other Marines he had worked with.  MSgt C_ recommended an HONORABLE discharge based on his direct, daily supervision and personal knowledge of the Applicant.

     In contrast, her OIC, Warrant Officer M_, stated in his December 28, 1998 report that due to the short period of time that he had known the Applicant, it would be difficult to draw any opinions.  Indeed, he had known the Applicant for less than one month.  Despite this lack of personal knowledge, he continued and said that based on what little he knew, "she is definitely lacking."  His opinion, however, was based on her perceived "background" and on events to which he had no direct or personal knowledge.  As such, his evaluation of the Applicant should be afforded less weight, if any at all, in relation to the statements of the NCOIC.

     In light of the Applicant's overall good service, factors beyond her control, and the credible statements of her immediate supervisor, we ask for the Board's careful and sympathetic consideration of all the evidence of record used in rendering a fair and impartial decision.  While her service is not spotless, negative events in her record do not outweigh the positive aspects of her service.  Your Applicant maintains that her General Discharge (Under Honorable Conditions) is inequitable because her overall period of service was very good, and the issues surrounding child care were beyond her control.

These issues supersede any issues previously submitted by the Applicant.
Respectfully, (Signed by civilian counsel)

Documentation

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

Applicant's Notification of Separation Proceedings dtd Dec 20, 1998
Letter from Applicant's Parent, dtd Oct 20, 1998, stating unable to assist with child care
Letter from Applicant's Grandmother, dtd Oct 26, 1998, stating unable to assist with child care
Family Child Care Referral List
Provider Resignation letter from B_ G_
Parris Island Family Child Care Listing
Statement of Immediate Supervisor, MSGT L.J. C_, dtd Dec 23, 1998, concerning Applicant
Statement of Immediate Supervisor, W.O. M_, dtd Dec 28, 1998, concerning Applicant
Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		950809 - 951023	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  951024		Date of Discharge:  990210

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:  03  03  17
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12+		AFQT:  52

Highest Rank:  Cpl

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.5 (10)		Conduct:  4.6 (10)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, Rifle Sharpshooter Badge, SSDR 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None 

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PARENTHOOD OR CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILDREN,  authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6203.1.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

960430:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92:  At the SOM, EWTGLANT, Norfolk, VA, on or about 960405, failure to obey a lawful written order issued by NAVPHIBASELCREEKINST 11101.10J, an order which it was her duty to obey, not to consume alcoholic beverages while under the legal drinking age; violation of UCMJ, Article 112:  On or about 2005, 960405 was found drunk while in a duty status.
Awarded reduction in pay grade to E-1, forfeiture of $437.00 per month for 2 months, and restriction for 60 days.  Not appealed.

960715:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct [violation of 
Article 91 of the UCMJ].  Advised that similar actions in the future may result in Article 15 punishment.  Advised of right to make a statement and Applicant chose not to make statement. 

961003:	Eligible but not recommended for promotion to PFC for month of Oct due to NJP held on 960430.  Chose not to make a statement.

980223:	Applicant advised her command of her confirmation of pregnancy and acknowledged her responsibility for making child care arrangements, remain available for worldwide assignment and the requirement to pass the Marine Corps Physical Fitness Test and conform to the acceptable weight standards no later than six months following return to full duty.

980304:	Applicant's Letter of Retention in the Marine Corps due to pregnancy.

980331:	Eligible but not recommended for promotion to CPL for month of April, May and June due to poor judgment.  Chose not to make a statement.

981011:	Applicant's child was born.

981106:	Counseled concerning responsibilities of being a single parent and maintaining Family Care Plans per MCO 1740.13A.  Specifically, lack of an adequate child care plan which would allow availability for world wide assignments or deployments, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

981204:	Counseled concerning misconduct, specifically cohabitation with a married man, not her husband, W_ B_ L_, identified as her fiancée on the SGLV-8286 in her SRB.  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.  Applicant chose to make a statement concerning this counseling entry.

981213:	Applicant's statement/rebuttal to the counseling of 981204.

981220:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for a general (under honorable conditions) discharge by reason of convenience of the Government due to Parenthood.

981220:	Applicant advised of her rights concerning separation processing.  [Microfiche record unreadable, therefore unable to determine which rights exercised or waived by the Applicant.]

990102:	Commanding officer recommended discharge by reason of parenthood.  
	[Microfiche record unreadable.]

990204:	GCMCA [CG, 2d Marine Aircraft Wing, U.S. MARFORLANT] directed the Applicant's discharge.  [Microfiche record unreadable, unable to determine the directed characterization of service.] 

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 990210 under honorable conditions (general) by reason of Convenience of the Government due to parenthood or custody of minor children (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 but not equitable (C and D).

Issue 1.  Reference (A) states "characterization of service for a Marine separated under the provisions of paragraph 6203, convenience of the government is either honorable or general (under honorable conditions) as determined by the Marine's service record unless the Marine is in a "entry level status."  A review of the Applicant's record reflected average proficiency and conduct marks well above the level that qualifies one for an Honorable discharge.  Though there was some negative information in the Applicant's service record, the Board has to assume that was reflected in the semi-annual proficiency and conduct marks for the period of the negative remarks.  Thus, because of the average performance marks of the Applicant, the Board determined the Applicant's discharge is equitably characterized as honorable.  Relief granted. 

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E, effective 18 Aug 95), paragraph 6203, CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT.

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 “afls14.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