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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

 ex-FA, USN
Docket No. ND05-00805

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050407.  The Applicant requests her characterization of service received at the time of discharge changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20050908.  After a thorough review of all available 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 3 to 2 that the discharge shall remain (general) under honorable conditions and 5 to 0 that the reason for discharge shall remain parenthood or custody of minor children: MILPERSMAN 1910-164, Separation Code “JDG.”

 
PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application: 

“By changing my current discharge I’ll be able to receive the GI Bill; this way I’ll be able to finish my education also, by changing my discharge I’ll be able to receive my certificate for a VA Loan, I am also appealing because I have paperwork stating that I should have received honorable discharge.  I’d also like to change my time in the military I was cheated out of (8) months.”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214
Administrative Remarks

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	19920513 – 19920707		
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  19920708		Date of Discharge:  19960726

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    04 00 19
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  none
	Confinement:		  none

Age at Entry:  19 

Years Contracted:  4 (12 month extension)

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  45

Highest Rate:  FA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.8 (3) 	Behavior:  3.8 (3) 	OTA:  3.40 

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  National Defense Service Medal.

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

(GENERAL) UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS /PARENTHOOD OR CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILDREN, authority:  MILPERSMAN, Article 3620215.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

920513:	Enlistment waiver for medical disqualification (underweight) granted.

950807:	Applicant to unauthorized absence 0730 this date.

950814:	Applicant from unauthorized absence 0900 this date (7 days/surrendered).

950830:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 950807 to 950814.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $426 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 14 days, reduction to E-1.  (Restriction, extra duty and forfeiture suspended for 6 months).  No indication of appeal in the record.

960726:	Administrative remarks:  Discharged this date with an honorable discharge by reason of parenthood.  The administrative remarks page was not signed by the Applicant.

960726:	DD-214 issued, Applicant discharged this date with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service by reason of parenthood or custody of minor children.  Applicant signed the DD-214.

Service Record did not contain the Administrative Discharge package.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19960726 by reason of convenience of the government due to parenthood or custody of minor children (A) with a service characterization of (general) under honorable conditions.  After a thorough review of all available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board discerned no inequity or impropriety in the discharge action or the characterization of the Applicant’s service (B and C).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (D).   

Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have occurred during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question.  The Applicant contends she should have received an honorable discharge based upon an administrative remarks page documenting her “honorable” characterization of service.  When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.  A general (under honorable conditions) 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 a nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for violation of UCMJ Article 86 (unauthorized absence, 7 days).  The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Applicant was not responsible for her conduct or that she should not be held accountable for her actions.   Relief denied.

The Applicant states that she was “cheated out of (8) months” of time in the military.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support her contention that her time of service was incorrectly calculated.  The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity.  Relief denied.  

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.  Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment, housing or educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.  Relief denied.

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 should be provided to the Board include credible evidence 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 documentation for the Board to consider.  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.  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), effective 22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96, Article 3620215, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT ON THE BASIS OF 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.

D.   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