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

ex-LTJG, USNR
Docket No. ND01-00588

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010326, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing discharge review before a traveling panel closest to Los Angeles, CA.  The applicant designated civilian counsel as her representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, she was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel, all hearings are held in the Washington, DC area.  The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the Board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 011031.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character and reason for discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: SECNAVINST 1920.6A.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

This application is being submitted on behalf of M_ A_ S. M_ (Applicant), formerly known as M_ A_ S. v_ H_.  Ms. M_ was a Lieutenant Junior Grade in the United States Navy, having served on active duty from November 2, 1986 through September 28, 1990.  Her discharge was categorized as general under honorable conditions.  The basis for the discharge was for misconduct based upon the commission of a serious offense. [Enclosure 1, DD214].  In this application, she is seeking to upgrade her discharge to honorable and, at the very minimum, remove any reference from her official records any reference to the commission of a serious offense.  It is respectfully submitted that Ms. M_'s personal and professional history since leaving the Navy warrants such relief.

     Ms. M_ was discharged largely over the appearance of impropriety rather than the commission of any offense.  As explained in Enclosure 2, her Application for Correction before the Board of Correction of Naval Records, she was discharged based upon her perceived over familiarity with an enlisted subordinate while stationed at NAS Adak, Alaska.  It is the stated position of Ms. M_'s that she would have avoided the negative consequences she now suffers if she had been less naive and better represented.  In light of her record since leaving the Navy, she is most probably correct as to that position.

     Ms. M_ was the only female aviator assigned to NAS Adak, Alaska.  The living environment at that base encouraged undue familiarity in that officer and enlisted personnel were required to live in close proximity to each other.  At the time she was stationed there, after hours activities that mixed officer and enlisted personnel together was a common occurrence and condoned by the command.  As has been her statement since the onset of these allegations, she faced sex discrimination on a broad basis and when she did not engage in relations with other officers, it was soon rumored that she was involved with an enlisted member of her command.

     At the time these allegations came to light, the nearest military counsel that she could consult with was located in the state of Washington.  Due to the circumstances and her unfamiliarity with the system, she accepted an adverse fitness report without making a rebuttal and eventually accepted a general discharge rather than confront the allegations head on.

The enlisted member that she was accused of having a relationship with was eventually promoted and transferred to a preferred command at a different base.

Her application before the Board for Correction was eventually rejected on January 26, 1996. [Enclosure 3].

     Ms. M_'s one unwavering goal throughout her life has been to become a pilot with one of the major airlines.  It was never questioned by the Navy that she had the tools to become a competent pilot and since her discharge, she has endeavored to reach that goal.  As can be expected, she has had to struggle to meet that goal and her efforts along the way point to the true qualities of this applicant.

  Ms. M_ was unemployed for over eighteen months.  She conducted an interview with United Airlines during the summer of 1991 but was quickly rejected when the discussion turned to her discharge from the Navy.  She was compelled to take on work as a sales clerk at a fabric store during the holiday season of 1991.  Through perserverence, she was hired on as a First Officer for Scenic Airlines in Las Vegas, Nevada in February 1992.  This job entailed responsibility for weight and balance calculations for a 19 passenger aircraft flown by two pilots along with other duties typical of a co-pilot in the cockpit.  Throughout the next two years, she continued applying for positions with major airlines but had no success.

     By September 1994, she began to believe that she could not reach her goal as a pilot with a major airline and she took a position with the Seattle Police Department as a dispatcher/911  operator.  She held that position full time through 1999 when she was accepted as a police recruit for the Seattle Police Department.  She underwent an extensive background check and tested in the top 4% of all candidates for the position. [Enclosure 4] She entered the academy and was offered a pilot job by Harbor Air before completing the academy, which she immediately opted for.  While employed at Harbor Air from September 1999 through August 2000, she piloted a passenger transport operating out of SeaTac International Airport.  When she was not working as a pilot, she maintained a part time position as a dispatcher/911 operator with the Seattle Police Department.  In September 2000, Ms. M_ accepted a position with Horizon Air, [Enclosure 5].  She worked with this airline as a co-pilot for scheduled transport of passengers throughout Northwestern United States.

     As of the date of this petition, Ms. M_ has been accepted as a pilot with TWA, [Enclosure 6], and has also been informed that she is being considered for a position with Delta Airlines.

     Throughout her professional career, Ms. M_ has made a positive impact upon those that she has served, including those in the military. [Enclosures 7 & 8].  While stationed at Adak, she worked with Master Chief Petty Officer P_ F_ in organizing and coordinating a very successful Navy and Marine Corps Relief Society Fund Drive.  Her time with the Seattle Police Department was very well spent and obviously made an impact upon those she worked with. [Enclosures 9, 10 & I 1].  She excelled as a dispatcher and made it obvious to those who knew her that she would have made a fine police officer.  Only her calling as a pilot prevented her from doing so.

     During the time that she worked with the various airlines, she has continued to make an impact upon her co-workers. [Enclosures 12-20].  She excelled as a pilot and, despite her discharge characterization, she has continued to achieve increasing professional success in her chosen avocation.

     Not only is Ms. M_ a stellar pilot and professional in the truest sense, she has also impressed people with her integrity and honesty. [Enclosure 21]

     Ms. M_ has shown through her steady efforts that she would not allow the discharge to ruin any opportunity that she might strive to obtain.  She has succeeded in spite of the disability.  But more importantly, her history since leaving the Navy reveals that this applicant was pinned with a characterization that she should have never received.  This former Naval aviator has now shown that she could never truly have committed such an offense.

     It is respectfully requested that the discharge suffered by Ms. M_ be upgraded to honorable and any reference to the commission of a serious offense be stricken from her official records.  This applicant has truly warranted such relief as a result of her achievements over the past ten years.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
DD 149 (4 pages)
BCNR decision, date 26 Jan 96
Applicant's appointment/personnel records from City of Seattle Police Department (5 pages)
TWA's Letter of Employment dtd Feb 8, 2001
Character Reference ltr from UCCM(SCW) P F F_ dtd 15 Apr 2000
Character Reference ltr from M_ F_ dtd Jan 11, 1995
Letter of Recommendation from G_ A. A_, Comm Section of Seattle Police Dept, dtd Mar 22, 2000
Character Reference ltr from co-worker/friend, T_ C. L_ dtd Apr 16, 2000
Character Reference ltr from co-worker, Ofc J_ M_ H_, dtd May 1, 2000
Character Reference undtd ltr from K_ S. B_ Delta Air Lines
Letter of Recommendation from M_ V. H_, Retired Scenic Airlines Line Captain, dtd Nov 17, 1999
Letter of Recommendation from H_ G_, Captain (retired) TWA, dtd 14 Apr 2000
Letter of Recommendation from M_ E. W_. American Airlines Flight Attendant, dtd May 11, 2000
Character Reference ltr from co-worker, M_ S_, America West Captain, dtd Apr 21, 2000
Letter of Recommendation from Captain K_ K_, Check Airman, Harbor Airlines, dtd Aug 14, 2000
Letter of Recommendation from G_ R. N_, Dir of Operations, Scenic Airlines, dtd Jun 10, 2000
Character Reference ltr from co-worker/friend, T_ L. H_, TWA First Officer, dtd Dec 12, 1999
Letter of Recommendation from S_ B_, F28 FO SEA, undtd
Character Reference ltr from S_ & G_ L_, dtd Jul 3, 2000 

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USNR (AOC)	861102 - 870319	To accept commission
	Inactive: USNR (AOCNCP)	860930 - 861102	To AOC training

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Commission:  870320	Date of Discharge:  900928

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  06  09
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  22			

Education Level:  16		

Highest Rate:  LTJG

Final Officer Performance Evaluation Averages:  All officer performance reports were available to the Board for review. 

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  Navy "E" Ribbon

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None 

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

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority:  SECNAVINST 1920.6A.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

880520:	Designated as Naval Aviator.

900803:	Applicant acknowledged she was being processed for involuntary administrative separation for cause based on fraternization with an enlisted person in violation of the custom of the naval service and the least favorable characterization of service is other than honorable.  Applicant advised of her rights and having consulted with counsel, elected to waive her right to the administrative separation board procedures but elected to tender a resignation in lieu of separation processing, to submit a statement, and the right to obtain copies of the documents forwarded to the Secretary to support the basis for the separation.

900803:	Applicant's Statement

900803:	Applicant's request for resignation, in lieu of administrative separation processing.  Applicant acknowledge that characterization of service would be "under honorable conditions (general)."

900821:	BUPERS recommended to the Secretary of the Navy, officer resignation request for a General Discharge in lieu of administrative separation processing be accepted and further recommended that the separation code will be BKQ (commission of a serious offense).  BUPERS comments: (verbatim):  "Enclosure (1) (LTJG Applicant's ltr of 3 Aug 90) provides documentation concerning LTJG (Applicant)'s unprofessional personal relationship with a chief petty officer which she continued despite counseling and direction from a senior officer.  When informed by her command that she would be processed for administrative separation, she requested guidance for submitting a resignation request.  By enclosure (1), she tendered her resignation request for a General Discharge and waived her right to an administrative board using a form letter provided by the Chief of Naval Personnel (PERS-822).

900829:	The Secretary of the Navy approved the applicant's request for resignation and discharge under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 900928 Under Honorable Conditions (General) for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (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 and equitable (C and D).

The Board considered the applicant’s issues that she was discharged due to an appearance of impropriety, poor representation, and sex discrimination.  The Board found nothing in the record or provided by the applicant to support the issue.  The Board noted the applicant requested resignation due to an unprofessional relationship with a chief petty officer.  The Board rejects the claim that the applicant was poorly advised by counsel.  There is no evidence that her counsel was unfit to advise the applicant at the time of discharge.  Additionally, the applicant’s claim that she was discriminated against due to her gender is unsupported by the facts of the case or additional documentation.  Relief is not warranted.

The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re characterization of a discharge.  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 the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, may be considered by the NDRB.  The applicant provided substantial documentation of her employment and character, however the Board found the applicant’s documentation lacking in verifiable volunteer service to her community.  Relief based on post service is not warranted.

The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an applicant's discharge, will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted.  The summary of service clearly documents that a commission of a serious offense was the reason the applicant was discharged.  No other Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describe why the applicant was discharged.  To change the Narrative Reason Separation would be inappropriate.

The applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge.  Representation at personal appearance hearing is recommended. 

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  The Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6A of 21 November 1983 (Administrative Separation of Officers), establishes policies, standards and procedures for the administrative separation of Navy and Marine Corps officers from the naval service in accordance with Title 10, United States Code and DoD Directive 1332.30 of 15 October 1981.

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 "afls10.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