ex-AN, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20080213
Characterization of Service Received:  
Narrative Reason for Discharge:  
Authority for Discharge:  MILPERSMAN  (PREGNANCY)

Applicant’s Request:  Characterization change to:  
		       Narrative Reason change to: 

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: USNR (DEP)	20040930 - 20050725  		Active:   

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20050726	   Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension	      Date of Discharge:  20070604
Length of Service:    Yrs    Mths  09  Dys	Education Level:  	Age at Enlistment:  	AFQT:  48
Highest Rank/Rate:  AN	Evaluation Marks:  Performance: NFIR	Behavior: NFIR	OTA:  NFIR
Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):   

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJPs:	

SCMs:	

SPCMs:	

CC:	

Retention Warnings:  .

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

Related to Military Service:	DD 214:  	Service and/or Medical Record:  		Other Records:  
Related to Post-Service Period:	
	Employment:			Finances:			Education/Training:	
	Health/Medical Records:		Substance Abuse:			Criminal Records:	
	Family/Personal Status:		Community Service:		References:		
Additional Statements From Applicant:  		From Representation:  		From Member of Congress:  
Other Documentation (Describe) 

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

Applicant’s Issues

1. Narrative reason is incorrect; Applicant left the Navy because of a hardship due to lack of care of child and not due to pregnancy.

Decision

Date:  20080814   		Location:  Washington D.C	 Representation:  

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

Discussion

: ()  .  The Applicant contends her narrative reason should be changed to hardship since she left the Navy because she had nobody to take care of her child and not due to her pregnancy.  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.  Pursuant to MILPERSMAN 1910-112, pregnant service members may request a separation due to pregnancy.  The requester must provide a certificate of pregnancy from a physician assigned to a military treatment facility and demonstrate overriding and compelling factors of personal need which warrant separation.  Additionally, the request must be submitted via the chain of command not later than 5 months prior to the requested separation date and up to date of estimated delivery.  

The evidence of record indicates the Applicant submitted a Special Request Chit on 4 April 2007, via her chain of command, requesting separation by reason of Convenience of the Government - Pregnancy.  Additionally, she submitted a letter explaining why her husband and other family members were not able to assist with the care of her child.  A Statement of Pregnancy dated 17 January 2007 was completed by the senior medical officer aboard the USS WASP (LHD 1) which indicated the Applicant was currently pregnant with an expected delivery date of about 21 August 2007.  Pursuant to the Transmittal letter of the Commanding Officer, Naval Air Station, dated 14 June 2007 to the Commander, Naval Personnel Command, the Applicant’s request for discharge based on Convenience of the Government - Pregnancy was approved.  This evidence contradicts the Applicant’s argument and statement she should have received a hardship discharge, in that she requested and was discharged due to pregnancy under MILPERSMAN 1910-112, and not due to hardship as outlined in MILPERSMAN 1910-110.  Furthermore, she met all the requirements for discharge due to pregnancy, but did not meet the requirements for separation due to hardship in that the service member must demonstrate a severe hardship existed at the time of the request.  In the Applicant’s request, discussed above, she indicated she had no one to properly care for her child.  Based on the Statement of Pregnancy, the Applicant was pregnant at the time she requested separation and therefore did not require childcare.  Thus, it would have been impossible to prove a severe hardship existed due to improper childcare since her child was unborn and did not need a caretaker at the time of her request.  The Board determined there was no impropriety or inequity in the discharge and no other narrative reason for separation could more clearly describe why the Applicant was discharged.  The Board determined relief was not warranted.

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service,   Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found 

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 14, effective 31 March 2006 until Present, Article 1910-112, SEPARATION BY REASON OF CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT - PREGNANCY.

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 to the Joint Service Review Activity, OUSD (P&R) PI-LP, The Pentagon, Washington, DC  20301-4000.  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, provided 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 granted 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 or is referred to a court martial 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 other medical related reasons.  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 special 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.  The NDRB does not have the jurisdictional authority to review a discharge or dismissal resulting from a general court-martial.

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