ex- BM2, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20160826
Characterization of Service Received:  
Narrative Reason for Discharge:  PARENTHOOD OR CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILDREN
Authority for Discharge:  MILPERSMAN 1910-124 [PARENTHOOD OR CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILDREN] 

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:	
Narrative Reason change to: REQUESTED BUT NOT SPECIFIED
Reentry Code change to: RE-1

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:	USNR 20030728 - 20070225  HON	Active:	USN 19990802– 20030727 HON
	USNR 20070803 - 20081018  HON		USN 20070223– 20070802 HON

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20081019	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20120705 [Based on NAVPERS message 271956Z JUN 12]
Length of Service:  03 Year(s) 08 Month(s) 16 day(s)	Highest Rank/Rate:  GM2
Education Level:  	AFQT:  52

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency: 3.0 (3)   Behavior/Conduct: 3.0 (3)   OTA: 3.36 
Fitness Reports: 

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  Pistol  OSR AFRM (w/M Device) GWOTEM GWOTSM NDSM  NAVY “E” SSDR (2)

Periods of UA:  NONE
Periods of CONF:  NONE
Other Time Lost per DD214:  NONE

NJP:  	SCM:  	SPCM:  	CC:  	

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- 20111213:	Administrative warning remark to complete Family Care Plan within 30 days and failure to do so can result in separation from the Navy Reserve. 

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

	DD 214:		Service/Medical Record:		Other Records:	
	Employment:		Finances:		Education/Training:	
	Health/Medical Records:		Rehabilitation/Treatment:		Criminal Records:	
	Personal Documentation:		Community Service:		References:	
	Department of VA letter:		Other Documentation:	

Additional Statements

	From Applicant:		From/To Representation:		From/To Congress member:	

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560D, Change 33, effective 4 August 2010 until 18 December 2012, Article 1910-124, 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 IV, Para 403m(7)(a), Presumption Concerning Court-Martial Specifications.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant requests a change to her reentry code in order to reenlist.
2.	The Applicant contends that she did not receive an updated DD 214 or any discharge papers.
3.	The Applicant contends that her command did not submit her separation package in accordance with MILPERSMAN 1910-124.
4.	The Applicant requests a change to her narrative reason for separation contending that her command did not give her a Review Board to submit her family care plan
5.	The Applicant contends that her command did not notify her of her administrative separation processing, that her command sent her notice of administrative separation processing to the wrong address, and that they did not return her call and e-mails, and denied her right submission of her family care plan.

Discussion

Date:  20170320		Location:  WASHINGTON D.C.	Representation:  

The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB), under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.  In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  The Board completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process to ensure the pertinent standards of equity and propriety were met.

The Applicant's record of service included:

Based on a failure to provide a Family Care Plan, the command administratively processed the Applicant for separation.  The Applicant’s command did not receive her notification and rights acknowledgement form. 

:  The Applicant requests a change to her reentry code in order to reenlist.  Effective 06 February 2015, the NDRB is authorized to change a NDRB Applicant’s Reenlistment Code if related to an accompanying change in discharge characterization or narrative, but this authority is strictly limited to those cases where an applicant’s narrative reason or characterization of discharge is changed and that change warrants revision of the previously issued reenlistment code.  Additionally, the NDRB 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.

:  The Applicant contends that she did not receive an updated DD 214 or any discharge papers.  In accordance with paragraph 1.a. of BUPERS Instruction 19.00.8D, “Certificate of Release or discharge from Active Duty (DD 214/DD 214C/DD 214WS and DD 215), the DD 214 will be issued to personnel released from active duty.  Reserve Component personnel ordered to active duty for a contingency operation will be issued a DD 214 regardless of the number of days served on active duty.  The Applicant’s service record includes two DD 214s.  The first DD 214 was issued upon her release from active duty on 27 July 1003 and her second DD 214 was her being a Reserve Component personnel ordered to active duty for a contingency operation where she served from 23 February – 02 August 2007.  The Applicant is not eligible to receive a DD 214 for being separated from the Navy Reserves.  The Applicant received a Navy message from COMNAVPERSCOM dated 271956Z JUN 12, subject:  ADMIN DISCH ICO BM2 MISTY CHASE, USN, XXX-XX-5993 as documentation for her discharge.  She provided a copy of this message to the NDRB, which confirms that she received this documentation.

:  The Applicant contends that her command did not submit her separation package in accordance with MILPERSMAN 1910-124.  The NDRB presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  The Applicant provided an e-mail from Navy Personnel Command (PERS-913), 11 April 2012 that returns the Applicant’s separation package citing that it was not in accordance with MILSPERSMAN 1910-124.  The record shows that the Applicant’s command submitted another separation package dated 27 April 2012.  COMNAVPERSCOM approved the Applicant’s discharge and referenced the separation package sent in by the Applicant’s command on 27 April 2012  in the Navy message 271956Z JUN 12 described in the paragraph above.

Issue 4:  The Applicant requests a change to her narrative reason for separation contending that her command did not give her a Review Board to submit her family care plan.  The record shows that a NAVPERSCOM Special Cases Board reviewed the Applicant’s deferment request on 09 December 2011 and unanimously approved a 30 day deferment, through 13 January 2012 so that the Applicant would have time to prepare a viable Family Care Plan.  The Applicant signed a NAVPERS 1070/613 Form on 13 December 2011 acknowledging receipt of a Family Care Plan Certificate, that she had 30 days to return her completed plan, and that failure to provide such information can subject her to separation from the Navy Reserve.  The Applicant failed to make an adequate Family Care Plan within the allotted time and the command initiated separation procedures on 24 January 2012.  The Applicant’s discharge was approved by COMNAVERSOM and the Applicant was discharged on 27 June 2012.  

The Applicant stated that the Special Cases Board awarded her 30 days to update her Family care Plan, “where after NOSC Richmond would order her back to NOSC Richmond for a Review Board to submit it.”  The Applicant states that she never got this chance because she was never ordered to attend a Review Board to submit her Family Care Plan.  The Applicant does not provide any additional information regarding this Review Board and there is no information in her service record that mentions any type of Review Board that the Applicant should attend to turn in her Family Care Plan.  The Applicant states that she e-mailed her command her Family Care Plan on 06 January 2012 (seven days prior to the date the Family Care Plan was due), but does not provide any documentation or evidence.  The Applicant does not provide any information regarding any other attempts to submit her Family Care Plan on time such as sending it to the command via certified mail or delivering to her command in person to ensure that she met her requirement in time.  As mentioned above, the record does show that the Applicant acknowledged in writing on 13 December 2011 that failure to complete her Family Care Plan within 30 days could subject to her to separation from the Navy Reserves.  The NDRB concluded the command acted appropriately, equitably, and properly in processing the Applicant for separation.  

Issue 5:  The Applicant contends that her command did not notify her of her administrative separation processing, that her command sent her notice of administrative separation processing to the wrong address, and that they did not return her call and e-mails.  The Applicant provided the Board with documentation from the U.S. Postal Service that the certified mail intended for the Applicant was unclaimed.  The Applicant states that the command mailed it to the wrong address, an address that was not listed in her service record.  The Applicant contends that between 05-26 January 2012, she called her command and left several messages for a specific Petty Officer on a machine and verbally to other Staff, but he did not return her call.  She also stated that she called her command at least 20 times prior to 13 January 2012, but no one responded.   The Applicant states that she had a Board with the NOSC Richmond CO in 2012, but does not provide any information in regards to what this was in regards to and there is no information in her service record regarding any type of Board with her CO.  The Applicant also states that she was able to contact other personnel in her command, but not the specific Petty Officer she was trying to get ahold of.  

The NDRB presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  The Applicant did not provide any evidence that her command intentionally mailed her separation package to the wrong address.  With contact established with other personnel in her command, if the Petty Officer the Applicant was trying to call was not returning her calls, the Applicant could have contacted someone else in her chain of command such as a Chief or an Officer to address her issues and let her command know her calls were not being returned and that she could provide them with any information that was required (updated address, Family Separation Plan, etc.).  Ultimately, she also could have went to her command in person and addressed her concerns.  The NDRB found the characterization of the Applicant’s discharge was equitable and consistent with the characterization of discharge given others in similar circumstances.   

Decision

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s issues, summary of service,  record entries, and discharge process, the Board found  at the time of discharge.  Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall  HONORABLE, the narrative reason for separation shall  PARENTHOOD OR CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILDREN with a corresponding separation code of hdg, and the reentry code shall  RE-3B.  The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of the discharge.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum for additional information.

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

Complaint Procedures: If you believe 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/.  More information is available at http://www.secnav.navy.mil/mra/CORB/pages/ndrb/default.aspx.

Additional Reviews: After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance or telephonic hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s 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.  There are veterans organizations such as the American Legion and the Disabled American Veterans that are willing to provide guidance to former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade.  If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted their opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490, or http://www.secnav.navy.mil/mra/bcnr/Pages/default.aspx for further review.

Service Benefits: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  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 NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.

Reenlistment/RE-code: Effective 6 February 2015, the NDRB is authorized to change a NDRB Applicant’s Reenlistment Code if related to an accompanying change in discharge characterization or narrative, but this authority is strictly limited to those cases where an applicant’s narrative reason or characterization of discharge is changed and that change warrants revision of the previously issued reenlistment code.  Additionally, the NDRB 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 is processed subsequently for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings.  If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct or for any basis wherein an Other Than Honorable discharge is authorized, 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 BCNR can grant this type of narrative reason change.

Automatic Upgrades: There is no law or regulation that provides for an unfavorable discharge to be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct subsequent to leaving naval service.

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and/or Traumatic Brain Injury: For all claims involving PTSD and/or TBI, the NDRB’s review implemented the guidance set forth in the SECDEF Memorandum of 3 September 2014 (Supplemental guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder).  In accordance with U.S. Code, Title X, Section 1553 (d)(1) & d(2), the NDRB included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist and accorded the case sufficient priority to achieve an expedited resolution and a final decision.

Post-Service Conduct: The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  Outstanding post-service conduct, 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, is considered during Board reviews.  Documentation to support a post-service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s birth certificates (if applicable); character witness statements; documentation of community or church service; certification of non-involvement with civil authorities; evidence of financial stability or letters of good standing from banks, credit card companies, or other financial institutions; attendance at or completion of higher education (official transcripts); and documentation of a drug-free lifestyle.   The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate  in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

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 NDRB 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.

Military Sexual Trauma: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) uses the term "military sexual trauma" (MST) to refer to experiences of sexual assault or repeated, threatening sexual harassment experienced while on federal active duty, active duty for training, or inactive duty training.  To get confidential one-on-one help please contact the MST Coordinator at your nearest VA Medical Center or Call Safe Helpline at 1-877-995-5247 or visit www.mentalhealth.va.gov/msthome.asp.

Reporting Military Sexual Trauma: To report a military sexual trauma, you can make an anonymous report to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) by Text or Online.  The NCIS Tip Line provides service members, veterans and civilians a safe, discreet and ANONYMOUS option to report criminal and force protection threats within the USN and USMC without concerns of retaliation.  To report a crime by Text: Text  274637 (CRIMES); Type “NCIS” at the top of the message; and include as much detail as possible to ensure your tip can effectively be investigated.  To send your ANONYMOUS Tip via the online, go to https://www.tipsubmit.com/webtipsNAV.aspx?AgencyID=840.

Suicide Prevention: Veterans in emotional crisis or their loved ones can call the free and confidential Veterans Crisis Line at 1-800-273-8255 (then press 1); or chat online at http://www.veteranscrisisline.net, or send a text message to 838255 to connect with a caring, qualified Veteran Affairs Responder who can deal with any immediate crisis.