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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

    ex-LTJG, USNR
Docket No. ND05-01504

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050414.  The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be 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 20060614.  After a thorough review of the 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 unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of misconduct.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application: 

“Respectfully request a change to my discharge granted in 30 JUN 04 to Honorable due to the fact that this event was based on an incident during the first 18 months of service aboard USS-STETHEM with no other adverse action.  I was 1 of 3 females stationed aboard USS-STETHEM during the time of this incident with a crew of 323 personnel.  I feel that the Navy set me up for failure rather than success by not providing senior female leadership aboard STETHEM as role models to aid the transition from an all male ship to a coed ship.  I strongly believe that if female leadership was established aboard STETHEM, I would have never had made a severe error in judgment in fraternizing with an enlisted member of my command.

During my time aboard STETHEM (DDG 63), 07/01 to 03/03, I dedicated my life to serving the Navy to my fullest ability.  I was a leader and positively impacted the lives of many of the sailors, led my division in accomplishment, as they led me to a better understanding of the ship’s physical capabilities and an enhanced comprehension of the Navy.  Even after I was transferred off the ship, I continued to serve the Navy enthusiastically and to the best of my ability at Training Support Center, San Diego. I acknowledge my mistake in fraternizing, but wish the board to consider my service thereafter as proof that I had every intention to serve my country honorably and to my fill potential and believe that if senior female leadership were present the incident would have not occurred.  And, in saying that, I respectfully request for reconsideration of my discharge from the United States Navy.”

Documentation

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

Fitness Report and Counseling Record, dtd March 24, 2004
Raytheon Performance and Development Summary, dtd March 24, 2005
Letter to the Applicant from R_ A_, Dean of Graduate Studies, undtd, not signed
Master of Engineering Academic History, undtd, (2 pages)
Certificate of Merit for completion of Six Sigma Specialist Qualification, dtd March 31, 2005
Certificate in honor of Legendary Performance Demonstration, undtd
Quality Award, dtd September 1, 2005
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 1 and 4)
Fitness Report and Counseling Record, dtd June 29, 2001
Fitness Report and Counseling Record, dtd November 21, 2001
Fitness Report and Counseling Record, dtd June 20, 2002
Fitness Report and Counseling Record, dtd March 10, 2003
Qualification as Combat Information Center Watch Officer letter, dtd February 12, 2002
Designation as Officer of the Deck ltr, undtd
NAVPERS 1070/013, Administrative remarks, dtd March 12, 2003 (2 pages)
Separation travel orders, dtd June 29, 2004
Statement from Applicant, dtd September 29, 2005
Statement from Applicant, dtd January 26, 2006
Response to report of nonjudicial punishment, dtd May 16, 2003 (3 pages)
Statement regarding unqualified resignation request, dtd June 17, 2003 (2 pages)
Unqualified resignation request from active duty, dtd July 1, 2003 (2 pages)
Letter to Secretary of the Navy, dtd June 30, 2003 (2 pages)
Letter to Secretary of the Navy, dtd November 18, 2003
Acknowledgment of rights, dtd November 24, 2003
Character reference ltr from M_ P. M_ Commander, U.S. Navy, dtd June 27, 2003
Character reference ltr from W_ D_, undtd
Character reference ltr from A_ K_, LT USN, Officer in Charge, undtd
Character reference ltr from GMC(SW) R_ L. W_ USN ret., undtd
Character reference ltr from M_ D_, dtd June 6, 2003 (2 pages)
Character reference ltr from M_ R_, dtd June 16, 2003 (2 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: None
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Commission:  20001216		Date of Discharge:  20040630

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  06  15
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  None
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Commission:  22

Type of Commission:  Reserve 

Education Level:  16				Degree:  BS EE

Highest Grade:  LTJG

Final Officer’s Fitness Reports were available to the Board for review.

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)/MISCONDUCT, authority:  SECNAVINST 1920.6B.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

001216:	Applicant commissioned as an Ensign in the United States Navy Reserve.

001216:	Applicant commenced active duty.

021126:	Findings of Preliminary Inquiry.

021202:	Commanding Officer, USS STETHEM (DDG 63) issued a Nonpunitive Letter of Caution to Applicant.

030203:	Findings of Preliminary Inquiry.

030203:	Applicant issued a military protective order. 

030203:	Applicant’s voluntary statement to LCDR S_ M. S_, Preliminary Inquiry Officer. 

030214:	Applicant counseled and ordered to abide by and obey the Military Protective Order.  Applicant directed to refrain from contacting (physically) R_ D. M_ and approaching his property. Applicant advised to refrain from non-official telephonic and electronic mail communication with R_ D. M_. Applicant advised that the order was issued to promote good order and discipline and ensure the safety and protection of the person listed and to protect the Applicant from further allegations concerning harassment while the order is in effect. Applicant acknowledged receipt of Page 13 entry and did not desire to make a statement.

030312:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134:
	Specification: In that Lieutenant Junior Grade S_ J. D_(Applicant), U.S. Navy, USS STETHEM, on active duty, did, on or about September 2001 – February 01, 2003 knowingly fraternize with GM2 R_ D. M, an enlisted person, on terms of military equality, to wit: having a personal relationship, in violation of the custom of the Naval Service of the United States that officers shall not fraternize with enlisted persons on terms of military equality.
Charge II:  Violation of UCMJ, Article 107:
Specification: In that Lieutenant Junior Grade S_ J. D_(Applicant), U.S. Navy, USS STETHEM, on active duty, on or about November 25, 2002 with intent to deceive, make to LCDR S_ M. S_ an official statement, to wit: I do not have a personal relationship with GM2 R_ D. M_ which statement was false in that she did not accurately reflect the true nature of the relationship, and was then known by the said LTJG S_ J. D_(Applicant) to be so false.
Charge III:  Violation of UCMJ, Article 81:
Specification: In that Lieutenant Junior Grade S_ J. D_(Applicant), U.S. Navy, USS STETHEM, on or about November 2002, Conspire with GM2 R_ D. M_ to commit an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to wit: Fraternization and in order to effect the object of the conspiracy the said LTJG S_ J. D_(Applicant) and GM2 R_ D. M_ did enter into a secret relationship and commit fraternization.
Charge IV:  Violation of UCMJ, Article 92:
Specification 1: In that Lieutenant Junior Grade S_ J. D_(Applicant), U.S. Navy, USS STETHEM, on active duty, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by Commanding Officer, USS STETHEM, to wit: NONPUNITIVE LETTER OF CAUTION, dated December 02, 2002, an order which it was her duty to obey, did, on or about Dec 03, 2002, fail to obey the same by wrongfully continuing a personal relationship with GM2 R_ D. M_.
Specification 2: In that Lieutenant Junior Grade S_ J. D_(Applicant), U.S. Navy, USS STETHEM, on active duty, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by Commanding Officer, USS STETHEM, to wit: NAVPERS 1070/613 Fraternization Policy, an order which it was her duty to obey, did, on or about September 2001, fail to obey the same by wrongfully engaging in a personal relationship with GM2 R_ D. M_
	Award:  Written reprimand.

030312:	Applicant awarded a Punitive Letter of Reprimand by D. W. M_, Commanding Officer, USS STETHEM (DDG 63)

030312:	Commanding Officer request Applicant be detached for cause from USS STETHEM (DDG 63) by reason of misconduct and the loss of confidence in her ability to maintain good order and discipline.

030317:	Applicant’s appeal of nonjudicial punishment and reply to Punitive Letter of Reprimand.

030327:	Applicant’s response to request for detachment for cause.

030404:	Commander, Regional Support Organization, San Diego, CA recommends the Detachment for Cause be approved and Applicant be required to show cause for retention.

030409:	Commander, Regional Support Organization, San Diego, CA letter to Applicant via Commanding Officer, USS STETHEM (DDG 64).  The Commanding Officer granted appeal in part by dismissing Specification 2 of Charge IV.  Charge III - violation of the UCMJ, Article 81 is dismissed.  The language in the charge referencing the non-punitive letter of caution will be stricken and the nonpunitive letter of caution will be removed from the report of nonjudicial punishment.  I have determined that the punishment for the remaining offenses is just and that the Commanding Officer, USS STETHEM (DDG 63), did not abuse his discretion in awarding nonjudicial punishment.  Accordingly, the punishment awarded by your Commanding Officer was appropriate and the remainder of your appeal is denied.

030422:	Command, Naval Surface Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet returned detachment for cause request returned to Commanding Officer, USS STETHEM (DDG 63) for submission in accordance with MILPERSMAN 1611-010.

030429:	Applicant response to Punitive Letter of Reprimand.

030502:	Commanding Officer, USS STETHEM (DDG 63), report of nonjudicial punishment, recommends Applicant be detached for cause by reason of misconduct and show cause for retention. Commanding Officer’s comments: Commanding Officer’s nonjudicial punishment was held aboard USS STETHEM (DDG 63). A punitive letter of reprimand was awarded. LTJG D_ (Applicant) initiated and continued a lengthy, intimate fraternization with a subordinate, a second class petty officer. She was counseled, and ordered to cease and desist from any and all untoward activity. She was initially given the benefit of the doubt, and then, despite several opportunities to end her wrongful behavior, she persisted in continuing the relationship. This was substantiated by two command investigations.

030516:	Applicant’s response to report of nonjudicial punishment.

030602:	Commander, Regional Support Organization, San Diego recommended Applicant’s detachment for cause be approved and she be required to show cause for retention.

030617:	Applicant’s statement regarding unqualified resignation request.

030618:	Command, Naval Surface Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet recommended to Commander, Navy Personnel Command that Applicant’s detachment for cause be approved and she be required to show cause for retention.

030630:	Personal Representation Counsel letter to the Secretary of the Navy regarding Applicant’s request for unqualified resignation.

030701:	Applicant tendered an unqualified resignation request for an Honorable discharge.

031028:	Chief of Naval Personnel informed Applicant that Show Cause Authority found sufficient evidence to separate her from the Naval Service and advised her of her rights. [Extracted from Applicant’s letters of 031118 and 031124.]

031111:	Applicant notified of non-attainment of Surface Warfare Qualification.

031124:	Having been advised of her rights, the Applicant elected not to tender her resignation and elected to make a written statement.

040324:	Chief of Naval Personnel recommended to Secretary of the Navy denial of Applicant’s unqualified resignation request for an Honorable discharge recommending separating Applicant with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge by reason of misconduct.

040517:	Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) denied Applicant’s unqualified resignation request and separated Applicant with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20040630 by reason of misconduct (A) with a service characterization of general (under honorable conditions).  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 (B and C).  

The Applicant contends that her discharge is inequitable in that her discharge is “based on an incident during the first 18 months of service aboard USS STETHEM with no other adverse action.” The Applicant acknowledges her mistake in fraternizing but requests the Board consider her good service after being detached for cause and transferred to shore duty. 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 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 nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 134, 107, and 92 of the UCMJ. Violations of Articles 107 and 92 of the UCMJ are considered serious offenses. The Board notes that the “one incident” was a lengthy intimate fraternization with an enlisted sailor assigned to her division. This misconduct was investigated on two separate occasions. During the first investigation, the Applicant lied to the investigating officer. The Applicant’s rank, Lieutenant Junior Grade, and leadership responsibilities are contributing factors to the seriousness of this offense. The Applicant’s conduct brought discredit upon the naval service. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of her service, reflects her willful failure to meet the requirements of her commission in the U.S. Navy and falls short of that required for an upgrade of her characterization of service.  Relief is not warranted.

The Applicant contends that her problems in the Navy can be attributed to the lack of “senior female leadership aboard STETHEM.” The Applicant reported during the second command investigation into her misconduct that she understood the Navy’s policy on fraternization. This issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can consider relief.  While she may feel that the lack of senior female leadership was the underlying cause of her misconduct, the record clearly reflects her willful misconduct and demonstrated she was unfit for further service.  The evidence of record did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for her conduct or that she should not be held accountable for her actions.  Relief denied.

The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  However, 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, a procedural impropriety or inequity 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, is considered.  The Applicant provided one performance report from her employer, a letter of acceptance to graduate school, a training certificate, and two award certificates as documentation of post-service accomplishments. Additionally, the Applicant states she completed a master’s degree and is enrolled in a doctorate program. The Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation of post service character and conduct to mitigate the misconduct that resulted in the characterization of discharge.  Therefore, no relief will be granted.  

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 additional evidence related to this discharge.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6B (ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF OFFICERS), effective 13 December 1999 until 14 December 2005 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 14 March 1997.

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.

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