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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

  ex-ET3, USN
Docket No. ND05-00775

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050404.  The Applicant requests the reason for the discharge be “Hardship or Dependency Code.”  The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing discharge review before the Board in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan area.  The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant 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 20050812.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the narrative reason for the Applicant’s separation was discovered by the NDRB.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the narrative reason for separation shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: HONORABLE/PARENTHOOD OR CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILDREN, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-124.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“See Enclosure
(DOD financial management regulation volume 7A, chapter 9 states that hardship and dependency separations are considered involuntary for the purposes of this paragraph and do not require recumbent or unearned portions of a bonus.”

“I R__ M___ R___ respectfully request to have my military DD214 reason for separation code changed from Parenthood to Hardship.  I received a Honorable Discharge in April of 2003.  I believe that this request should be granted because my military career was cut short, rather forced to an end very prematurely.  In October of 2002 I was granted temporary custody of my nephew K___ K___.  No other relative at the time was in a position to take on the responsibility of  a child with Emotional Behavior Disorder and ADHD.  My chain of command at the time supported my going on leave to bring K___ to San Diego, California, my place of duty.  It was very evident that K___ needed to be placed in the Navy’s IEP program.  In 4 months he was transferred to 3 different schools in San Diego because none of them could give him the attention he needed or had a program in place to support him.  Although all of my paperwork was submitted accurately and on time, I received no correspondence on the status of my case for K___ from the IEP board as I worked with Ships Admin onboard USS BHR up until my separation.  In December of 2002 I left the USS BHR to attend a C school which I reenlisted 4 additional years for.  By January of 2003 I my ship was preparing to go underway.  The plan was for me to meet the ship overseas and have someone care for K__ until the ship returned to San Diego.  I searched long and hard for assistance.  K___’s mother was homeless, his father (my brother) was and still is in prison.  My sister has 4 children and could not afford to give K___ the attention that he requires, and neither did my mother.  I did not know what to do but to exhaust every imaginable option to save my military career.  Therefore, I worked with my chain of command to assist me in finding some type of resolve for my situation.  I tried to swap duty stations with anyone on the East coast looking for West coast orders, but to no avail, either our NEC’s were different or our gender were in conflict.  I sent a package for a Humanitarian Transfer to the East coast to finish remaining sea duty time or fill any open billet that I qualified for, however I was denied that as well when due to K__’s condition I should have easily qualified for it.  I also opted to go on shore duty for any open billet locally but again I was refused transfer to a shore command in San Diego, California.  The local office of Congresswoman S___ D___ of Lemon Grove California also tried to help me save my military career but her offices were turned down by the Pentagon as well.  I had the backing of not only ETC G__ L. M___, ETC K___ C___, but also the Master Chief of FTC San Diego.  All of whom collaborated diligently to save my career.  They would not have gone out on such a limb had my military service been as outstanding and professional as it was.   I was an asset to the Navy, I moved up the ranks rather quickly.  I made E-5 with less than 5 years in the Navy as an Electronics Technician.  I was dual qualified as both a Surface Warfare and Airfare Warfare, I also had many collateral duties, I was so dedicated in excelling that one of my former captains, Captain S___ (USS Frank Cable), noted me as being one of the most knowledgeable Repair Parts Petty Officers onboard during a NAVSEA08 audit.  At Comnavmarianas in Agana, Guam I was chosen to relieve a First Class Petty Officer although I was only an E-4 at the time.  In my spare time I was finishing up my first college degree in hopes of going to officer candidate school and prolonging my military career.  Unfortunately that goal was never realized.  My efforts to Stay Navy were stripped.  Today I am in the Navy Reserves, but I am still saddened by the organization that I gave my all to which was so quick to dismiss me, a hard charger, motivated, Go Navy Sailor.  However that is not where it ends, as part of my willing to Stay Navy, I reenlisted in April of 2002 onboard the USS BHR (while returning from Operation Enduring Freedom) and received an Selective Reenlistment Bonus of approximately $18,000.  Due to the incorrect code on my DD form 214, I am paying back something I worked so hard to earn.  It is with the facts of this letter and the utmost respect that I request that you consider changing my reason for separation code to reflect the hardship I encountered.  I was there for the Navy 24/7, please be there for me this one final time.

Respectfully,

R___ M___ R____
[address and phone number deleted]”                                                  

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD 149 dtd December 13, 2004
Applicant’s statement dtd December 13, 2004 (2pgs)
Applicant Account Statement (DFAS) billing date November 29, 2004
Applicant’s DD Form 214
Letter from Defense Finance and Accounting Service dtd November 6, 2003
Applicant’s Statement of Military Pay Account undated
DFAS Bonus Recoupment Statement undated
Letter from E__ W__, M.S. School Psychologist, Monterey Heights Elementary undated (3pgs)
Individualized Education Program Evaluation dated February 13, 2002(9 pgs)
Exceptional Family Member Medical and Educational Summary dated February 18, 2003 (3pgs)
Petition for Appointment of Guardian of Minor filed October 25, 2002

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	980217 - 980609	COG
	Active:   USN			980610 – 020428	HON

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  020429		Date of Discharge:  030407

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  11  09
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  21			Years Contracted:  4 (24 month extension) 

Education Level:  11			AFQT:  78

Highest Rate:  ET3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.00 (2)		Behavior:  3.50 (2)		OTA:  3.14

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  Enlisted Aviation Warfare Specialist, Enlisted Surface Warfare Specialist, Navy Unit Commendation, Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Naval “E” Ribbon (2)

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

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

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

020429:	Reenlisted on board USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD-6) for 6 years.

030311:	Family Care Plan Certificate:  Applicant indicated that she was unable to comply with the Navy's policy for dependent care. 

030324:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government due to parenthood.

030324:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with qualified counsel, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

030325:	Commanding Officer, USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD-6) recommended to Commander, Naval Personnel Command (PER-254) of recommended honorable discharge by reason of convenience of the government due to parenthood or custody of minor children.  Commanding Officer’s comments:  “…It is very clear that due to parenthood, ET3 Robinson is unable to fulfill her military obligations…  ET3 Robinson has made every effort to balance her military obligations but unfortunately, she has been unable to secure adequate dependent care arrangements and is faced with no other alternative but separation.  Accordingly, she is recommended for separation by the Reason of Convenience of the Government – Parenthood with an honorable Discharge, however, highly recommend reimbursement of her current SRB of $22,394.39.”

Complete discharge package not contained in service record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was honorably discharged on 20030407 by reason of convenience of the government due to parenthood or custody of minor children (A).  After a thorough review of the 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 presumption of regularity of governmental affairs was applied by the Board in this case in the absence of a complete discharge package (D).    

That Applicant contends that she deserved a discharge by reason of hardship because of her guardianship of a child with “Emotional Behavioral Disorder and ADHD.”  Regulations indicate discharges by reason of hardship are appropriate when a severe hardship exists not normally encountered by other members of the naval service.  The Board found that the  Applicant’s situation did not meet the criteria for discharge by reason of hardship as other members of the naval service complete their enlistment under circumstances similar to those of the Applicant.  The summary of service clearly documents that parenthood or custody of minor children was the reason the Applicant was discharged.  On 20030311 the Applicant indicated she was not able to comply with a family care plan.  Subsequently, the Applicant’s Commanding Officer notified the Applicant of his intention to recommend her discharge on that basis.  Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.  In the Applicant’s case, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore consider his discharge proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

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.  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 Present, 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.

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.

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