DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 9143-18/ 5881-15 Ref: Signature date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (b) USECDEF memo of 25 July 2018, "Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations" (c) DJAG (Administrative Law) memo of 4 Aug 10 ("Temporary Limited Duty Officers' Due Process Rights During Reversion and Administrative Separation Processing") (d) DoD Financial Management Regulation, Volume 7A, Chapter 35, para. 350202 Encl: (1) Original DD Form 149 (NR20150005881) w/ attachments A through G (2) OJAG Criminal Law Division (Code 20) Advisory Opinion, 1070 Ser 20/1830 of 3 Jan 19 (3) OJAG Administrative Law Division (Code 13) Advisory Opinion, 5420 Ser 13/4BC1245.18 of 21 Dec 18 (4) ., Response to Advisory Opinions of 4 Feb 19 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, originally filed enclosure (1) with this Board, requesting certain administrative relief based on various legal and equitable grounds. The Board advised Petitioner in its letter dated 13 January 2017 that his petition was disapproved. 2. On a consent motion for voluntary remand from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ( v. United States, Case No. ), this case was remanded to the BCNR to reconsider the case after obtaining advisory opinions from the relevant Office of the Judge Advocate General (OJAG) divisions and allowing Petitioner to comment on such advisory opinions. Enclosures (2) through (4) apply. Petitioner requests changes to his naval record, including, but not limited to: (a) removing derogatory material (non-judicial punishment (NJP)), setting aside his discharge, and removing his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214); (b) retroactive promotion to the grade of lieutenant (junior grade) (0-2E) as of 1 April 2012 and all corresponding back pay and allowances; and (c) service credit and entitlement to full retirement benefits commencing on 30 November 2015 at the grade of lieutenant (0 -3E); or, in the alternative, (d) upgrading his 30 June 2012 discharge, making certain administrative changes to his DD-214, and awarding full involuntary separation pay. Petitioner was a Temporary Limited Duty Officer (LDO) in the grade of ensign (0-lE) and served in the U.S. Navy for approximately 16 1/2 years before his administrative separation for drug abuse in 2012. The Navy formally reverted Petitioner to his previous enlisted status in the grade of senior chief (E-8) upon his administrative separation. At all relevant times, Petitioner was attached to the USS ). 3. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner's reconsideration petition on 7 February 2019 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the comprehensive corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, relevant portions of Petitioner's naval service records, applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, as well as two advisory opinions (AOs) from the relevant OJAG divisions, and Petitioner's rebuttal to the AOs. 4. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice, finds as follows: a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulation within the Department of the Navy. b. Petitioner originally enlisted in the Navy on 30 November 1995. On 12 February 2007, Petitioner reenlisted for a period of four years, until 11 February 2011. Petitioner was appointed to be an LDO in the grade of ensign (0-lE) on I April 2010. At the time of his LDO appointment, he had been serving as an E-8 (ITCS). c. Following his positive urinalysis for d-metharnphetarnines (more commonly known as MDMA, ecstasy, or "X"), Petitioner received NJP on 14 September 2011. His commanding officer (CO) found him guilty and awarded him a punitive letter of reprimand and 15 days' restriction. No civilian witnesses were present at the NJP hearing. Petitioner had originally requested a trial by court-martial, but his CO denied his request under the NJP "vessel exception." Petitioner appealed his NJP, but the immediate superior in command (ISIC), the Commander, , denied his appeal. On 18 October 2011, in his Report of NJP to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command (NPC) , Petitioner's CO requested that Petitioner be detached for cause (DFC). The ISIC forwarded the NJP Report to NPC ) on 10 November 2011 with a recommendation that Petitioner be required to show cause for retention in the Navy. d. On 9 February 2012, NPC notified Petitioner that there was sufficient evidence to revert him to his previous enlisted status and deny his reenlistment based on misconduct and substandard performance of duty. On 24 February 2012, Petitioner submitted a rebuttal to the reversion action. On 22 March 2012, also delayed Petitioner's promotion to the permanent LDO grade of lieutenant Junior grade) (0-2E), which had been projected for I April 2012. e. On 12 April 2012, PERS recommended to the Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) that Petitioner be reverted to his permanent enlisted status (at the rank of ITCS/E-8), his reenlistment be denied, and he be separated with a general (under honorable conditions) (GEN) characterization of service with a reenlistment code of RE-4. On 17 April 2012, the SECNAV approved the PERS recommendation. f. On 9 May 2012, PERS issued discharge orders reflecting that the SECNAV approved the termination of Petitioner ' s LDO appointment and directed that, at the completion of separation processing, Petitioner revert to permanent enlisted status, and that, in complying with these orders, Petitioner LDO status be terminated and he be discharged as an enlisted person in his permanent enlisted rating. On 30 June 2012, Petitioner was separated with a GEN characterization of service. Petitioner was not afforded the right to a hearing before an administrative separation board following his reversion to E-8. g. However, at the time (April/May 2012) Petitioner reverted back to his enlisted status and grade of E-8, he was well beyond his enlisted end of active obligated service (EAOS) date of 11 February 2011. h. Petitioner contends that he never wrongfully used a controlled substance but innocently ingested the drug. Petitioner argues that he is the victim of foul play orchestrated by his ex­ girlfriend, and he has steadfastly maintained his innocence. The evidence in the record corroborates his contention. Before this offense, Petitioner' s record was exemplary. i. At the time of his NJP in September 2011, Petitioner was an LDO ensign but was over seven months past his enlisted EAOS. Petitioner further alleges that the NJP was conducted without due process. Petitioner contends that, at his NJP hearing, his CO placed great weight on his refusal to submit to a command-administered polygraph exam and held that against him. Petitioner contends that he never received a fair and impartial hearing to properly adjudicate the charged offense. Petitioner also contends that his post-reversion GEN discharge was in violation of statutory and regulatory norms articulated by OJAG Code 13 as outlined in reference (c). j. As part of the BCNR's review, OJAG Codes 13 and 20 (Administrative Law and Criminal Law, respectively) reviewed Petitioner' s assertions and the available records. The Code 20 AO concluded that Petitioner's NJP was lawfully and properly administered in accordance with all relevant governing regulations, and was a legally sound exercise of disciplinary action. The Code 20 AO further determined that Petitioner failed to meet his burden to overcome the presumption of regularity, and that a reasonable factfinder could conclude, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he wrongfully used ecstasy. k. On the other hand, the Code 13 AO determined that there was a material error with Petitioner's administrative separation and characterization of service. The Code 13 AO observed that Service members may not be involuntarily extended beyond their EAOS date for administrative separation processing. Additionally, a command does not have authority to involuntarily retain personnel beyond their EAOS date unless court-martial charges have been preferred. Moreover, once an LDO reverts to enlisted status, the Navy's policies and procedures for enlisted separation apply. As Petitioner was well beyond his EAOS at the time of his reversion, the Navy could not process him for administrative separation because he no longer possessed a valid enlistment contract. The AO noted that, when a Service member's separation is based solely on his or her EAOS, the characterization of discharge must be Honorable in all but a few circumstances , none of which apply to Petitioner ' s case. Accordingly, the AO concluded that Petitioner was eligible for, and should have received, an Honorable characterization of service upon his separation from the Navy. 1. The Board noted that, despite being administratively separated with over 16 1/2 years of service, Petitioner was not eligible to receive either full or half separation pay per reference (d) because the underlying basis for his separation was misconduct. m. The Board also noted that, under Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the use of a controlled substance may be inferred to be wrongful in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The burden of going forward with evidence with respect to any such exception shall be upon the person claiming its benefit. If such an issue is raised by the evidence presented, then the burden of proof is upon the United States to establish that the use was wrongful. Further, the Board noted that knowledge of the presence of the controlled substance is a required component of wrongfulness. Knowledge of the presence of the controlled substance may be inferred from the presence of the controlled substance in the accused's body or from other circumstantial evidence. This permissive inference may be legally sufficient to satisfy the government's burden of proof as to knowledge. BOARD CONCLUSION The Board had the entire Criminal Investigations Division (CID) investigatory file available for review. Contrary to the decision of Petitioner's CO at NJP, the Board determined that a reasonable factfinder could conclude, by a preponderance of evidence, that Petitioner did not wrongfully use a controlled substance because his ingestion of the substance was without his consent or knowledge. The Board noted as follows: This case arose when an anonymous female caller phoned Petitioner's ship's Ombudsman on a Sunday afternoon (May 15, 2011) to say that she witnessed Petitioner using drugs-in particular, ecstasy. The Ombudsman notified the ship's Command Master Chief about the substance of the call. The caller identified herself as "" and provided no other identifying information, and her phone number could not be ascertained through caller ID. The Ombudsman in her CID interview stated that the caller was rude, demanding, angry, and irrational. The Ombudsman also stated that the caller was malicious in tone and seemed more interested in prosecuting Petitioner than expressing any concerns about his health and welfare. Earlier that day, Petitioner spent some time with an ex-girlfriend at his apartment. Following an argument where she suspected him of cheating on her, she first made an alcoholic drink mixed with orange juice for herself but then provided it to Petitioner. Unbeknownst to Petitioner, this drink was spiked with ecstasy. That same day, a Sailor from Petitioner's ship received a call from a female civilian (Ms. M) who relayed to him that she was just on a three-way call, and said her two friends (one was the ex-girlfriend) alleged that Petitioner did something wrong to one of them, so they put some drugs in his drink and were going to call his command. Earlier in this conversation, her two friends sought advice from Ms. M about how they could call the Navy and get Petitioner in trouble, and how they would go about calling and requesting that Petitioner get drug tested. Following his conversation with Ms. M, the Service member phoned Petitioner and told him about the substance of the phone call from Ms. M and the alleged spiking of his drink. Petitioner did not know Ms. M and thus did not suspect any foul play at that time. The next day at work, Petitioner was asked by his chain of command to voluntarily provide a urine sample, which he did because he had no reason to suspect that he had ingested drugs. His urine sample ultimately tested positive for d-methamphetamine, at over three and one-half times the DoD cutoff level for the drug metabolite. The Service member who alerted Petitioner about his spiked drink passed a polygraph examination regarding his account of the events that transpired. Ms. M also informed CID during her interview that, the next day (May 16), the ex-girlfriend and the other woman on the three-way call came over to her house. The ex-girlfriend told Ms. M that she was the one who called the command and used the name "" instead of her real name. The ex-girlfriend told Ms. M t at she had mixed a "smacker," the street name of ecstasy, into Petitioner's orange juice beverage. CID interviewed another female civilian (Ms. L), who stated that she had conversations on May 14 and May 15 with one of the two co-conspirators asking her for advice on how to get someone in trouble with the Navy. Ms. L also stated that they (the co-conspirators) were going to put "X" in Petitioner's drink and then call his ship to get him into trouble. She also stated that after the incident, she was visiting with the non-girlfriend co-conspirator, and she admitted that they put "X" in Petitioner' s drink. Procedurally, the Board concurred in part with the Code 20 AO, and determined that: (a) the "vessel exception" was properly applied by Petitioner's command, and Petitioner did not have the right to refuse NJP; (b) given the totality of the circumstances, this one-time drug-use offense was a "minor offense" for purposes of handling at NJP; and (c) adjudicating this minor offense at NJP was an appropriate and legally sound exercise of command discretion and within Service norms. The Board concluded, however, that Petitioner's ingestion of ecstasy was not wrongful. The Board determined that the preponderance of the evidence showed that the presence of the drug in Petitioner's system was without his knowledge. The Board believed that the evidence was sufficient for Petitioner to overcome the presumption of regularity to show a material error or injustice, and that the evidence rebutted the permissive adverse inference as to knowledge afforded the government in drug cases. Accordingly, the Board concluded that the evidence was not factually sufficient to establish every element of an Article 112a, UCMJ, offense in this case. However, notwithstanding the corrective action recommended below, the Board was not willing to grant Petitioner any relief based on the grade of lieutenant (0-3E). The Board noted that NPC's (PERS-833) delay of Petitioner's permanent promotion was related to his promotion to the grade of lieutenant Junior grade) (0-2E), which was projected to occur on 1 April 2012. Further, even assuming arguendo that Petitioner would have promoted in 2014 to the grade of lieutenant 0-3E, he would not have served the required time in grade by 30 November 2015 to receive retired pay at that grade. BOARD RECOMMENDATION In view of the foregoing, the Board unanimously finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following partial corrective action. A. That the 14 September 2011 NJP be set aside, and all NJP-related and corresponding derogatory documents and material- to include, but not limited to, NJP, punitive letter of reprimand, DFC, reversion to enlisted status, discharge orders, any corresponding adverse fitness Reports (as listed below), and NAVPERS 1070/613 "Page 13" administrative remarks-be removed from Petitioner's naval record. That Petitioner's adverse fitness reports for the periods lOAPR16 to 11MAY31, l lJUNO1 to l 2MAY3l, and 12JUNO1 to 12JUN30 be removed from his naval record. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by inserting a memorandum containing appropriate identifying data in place of each of the removed fitness reports; that the memorandum state that the fitness report has been removed by order of the Secretary of the Navy in accordance with the provisions of federal law and may not be made available to selection boards and other reviewing authorities; and that boards may not conjecture or draw any inferences as to the nature of the removed fitness report. That Petitioner's discharge from the U.S. Navy effective 30 June 2012 is null and void, and that Petitioner's corresponding DD Form 214 be removed from his naval record. That Petitioner's reversion to his enlisted status be voided, his record again reflect that he was appointed as an LDO in the grade of ensign (0-lE) on 1 April 2010, his delay of promotion to the LDO grade of lieutenant Junior grade) (0-2E) be removed and he be appointed to that LDO grade effective 1 April 2012, and that he receive all pay and allowances due as a result of these changes. That Petitioner be granted service credit from 1 July 2012 to 30 November 2015, with entitlement to full retirement pay and benefits commencing on 1 December 2015 at the grade of lieutenant Junior grade) (0-2E). That there be inserted in Petitioner's naval record a memorandum in place of the service credit, containing appropriate identifying data that such memorandum was directed by order of the Secretary of the Navy in accordance with the provisions of federal law, and that boards may not conjecture or draw any inferences as to the nature of the memorandum. Note: The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) will complete an audit of Petitioner' s records to determine if he is due any back pay and allowances. B. HOWEVER, should the ASN (M&RA) not concur with the Board's findings to grant the relief as outlined in Part A, above, the Board recommends that Petitioner's character of service be changed to "Honorable," the separation authority be changed to "MILPERSMAN 1910-164," the separation code be changed to "JFF," and the narrative reason for separation be changed to "Secretarial Authority." The Board does not recommend changing the reenlistment/reentry code, and the Board notes that reference (d) prohibits the receipt of separation pay in this case. In either case, A or B, that Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214. That a copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner's naval record. That, upon request, the Department of Veterans Affairs be informed that Petitioner's original application was received by the Board on 17 June 2015. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CONCLUSION I concur with the Board's conclusion that Petitioner' s ingestion of ecstasy was not wrongful. In doing so, I note the salient circumstances of this case that resulted in the error and injustice in Petitioner' s record. Contrary to Petitioner's CO's finding at NJP, the preponderance of the evidence does not show that Petitioner wrongfully used a controlled substance in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ. In contrast, the evidence shows, by a preponderance, that Petitioner-then a temporary LDO ensign (0-lE) with over 16 1/2 years of exemplary service and pending promotion to the grade of lieutenant (junior grade) (0 -2E)- unknowingly ingested a controlled substance as a result of the spiteful actions of an ex-girlfriend after an argument, and that, shortly thereafter, an anonymous caller, likely the ex-girlfriend, informed Petitioner' s command that he had used ecstasy. Petitioner voluntarily consented to provide a urine sample, which tested positive for D­ methamphetamines. Petitioner has steadfastly denied that he knowingly used ecstasy or any other illegal drug. Petitioner attempted to refuse NJP and demanded trial by court-martial, but, because he was assigned to a vessel, the UCMJ's "vessel exception" (10 U.S.C. § 815(a)) precluded his refusal. After a hearing, Petitioner's CO found him guilty-based only on the positive urinalysis results and Petitioner' s refusal to submit to a polygraph examination-and imposed NJP. Petitioner appealed, contending, among other things, that his CO improperly questioned him about, and placed great weight on, his lawful refusal to submit to a polygraph examination. The Commander, , denied Petitioner's appeal without addressing his contention. As a result of his alleged wrongful use of a controlled substance and subsequent NJP, Petitioner received a punitive letter of reprimand, several adverse fitness reports, adverse Page 13 administrative remarks, and a DFC; his promotion to lieutenant (junior grade) (0-2E) was delayed (and, ultimately, administratively withdrawn); and he was reverted to enlisted status, not permitted to reenlist, and separated upon his EAOS with a GEN characterization of service and a reenlistment code of RE-4. I do not concur, however, with the Board's implicit conclusion that, because Petitioner might not have been selected and approved for promotion to LDO lieutenant (0-3E) on or about 1 April 2014, corrective action to so promote him is unwarranted and beyond the Board's authority. In fact, promotion to Navy lieutenant (0-3 or 0-3E) is by an "all-fully-qualified-officers list" (AFQOL) process rather than by selection board. See 10 U.S.C. § 624(a)(3); SECNAVINST 1420.lB (cancelled); SECNAVINST 1420.3; Navy Personnel Command, LDO Promotions, "Recommended Guidelines," available at https://www.public.navy.mil/bupers­ npc/officer/communitymanagers/active/ldo cwo/Pages/Promotions.aspx (last visited April 19, 2019) (all fully qualified (AFQ) LOO lieutenants Gunior grade) (0-2s) are promoted to lieutenant (0-3)); Navy Personnel Command, "Active Duty 0-3 Boards," available at https://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/boards/activedutyofficer/03staff/Pages/default.aspx (last visited April 19, 2019) ("The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to recommend all fully qualified lieutenants junior grade for promotion to lieutenant without selection board action."). In other words, absent derogatory information in his record, Petitioner would have been promoted to 0-3E on or about 1 April 2014. See Navy Personnel Command, "Active Duty 0-3 Boards" ("Eligible lieutenants junior grade who were recommended for promotion on their most recent observed fitness report (i.e. promotion recommendation of 'promotable' [or better, in the case of LDOs]) will be added to the AFQOL. Officers whose names appear on the AFQOL will then receive an in-depth adverse information screening."). I also do not concur with the Board's express conclusion that, "assuming" Petitioner was promoted on or about 1 April 2014 to the grade of lieutenant (0-3E), corrective action to retire him in that grade on 1 December 2015 is beyond the Board's authority because he would not have served the required time in grade by that date to retire in that grade. Petitioner would have had 20 years of active-duty service on 30 November 2015 and thus would have otherwise been eligible to retire on 1 December 2015 under 10 U.S.C. § 6323(a). Petitioner, however, was not eligible to retire as a commissioned officer until 1 April 2018. See 10 U.S.C. § 6323(a)(2) (ten­ year commissioned service requirement may be waived to eight years by the SECNAV if authorized by the SECDEF); ALNAV 016/13 (waiving requirement to eight years until 30 September 2018). While the (waivable) two-year time-in-grade requirement would indeed have precluded Petitioner's retirement on 1 December 2015, see OPNAVINST 181l.3E, 'I[ 7b, there is no reason, in the absence of the errors and injustice in his record, not to presume that he would have continued to serve at least until he was eligible to retire on 1 April 2018. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RECOMMENDATION In view of the above, the Executive Director recommends the following corrective action. That the 14 September 2011 NJP be set aside, and all NJP-related and corresponding derogatory documents and material-to include, but not limited to, NJP, punitive letter of reprimand, DFC, reversion to enlisted status, discharge orders, any corresponding adverse fitness Reports (as listed below), and NAVPERS 1070/613 "Page 13" administrative remarks-be removed from Petitioner's naval record. That Petitioner's adverse fitness reports for the periods 10APR16 to 11MAY31, 11JUN01 to 12MAY31, and 12JUN01 to 12JUN30 be removed from his naval record. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by inserting a memorandum containing appropriate identifying data in place of each of the removed fitness reports; that the memorandum state that the fitness report has been removed by order of the Secretary of the Navy in accordance with the provisions of federal law and may not be made available to selection boards and other reviewing authorities; and that such boards may not conjecture or draw any inferences as to the nature of the removed fitness report. That Petitioner's discharge from the U.S. Navy effective 30 June 2012 is null and void, and that Petitioner's corresponding DD Form 214 be removed from his naval record. That Petitioner's reversion to his enlisted status be voided, his record again reflect that he was appointed as an LDO in the grade of ensign (0-lE) on 1 April 2010, his delay of promotion to the LDO grade of lieutenant (junior grade) (0-2E) be removed and he be appointed to that LDO grade effective 1 April 2012, and he receive all pay and allowances due as a result of these changes. That Petitioner be granted service credit from 1 July 2012 to 31 March 2018, and-unless promoted via an approved supplemental all-fully-qualified-officers list (AFQOL) as set forth below-entitlement to full retirement pay and benefits commencing on 1 April 2018 at the grade of lieutenant (junior grade) (0-2E). That there be inserted in Petitioner's naval record a memorandum in place of the service credit, containing appropriate identifying data that such memorandum was directed by order of the Secretary of the Navy in accordance with the provisions of federal law, and that boards may not conjecture or draw any inferences as to the nature of the memorandum. That Petitioner's name be placed on a supplemental lieutenant (0-3) AFQOL for the earliest fiscal year AFQOL for which he would have been eligible. That, if the supplemental AFQOL is approved, Petitioner be appointed in the grade of lieutenant (0-3E) as of the date he would have been appointed had his name been included on the earliest fiscal year AFQOL for which he would have been eligible; that he be granted service credit until 31 March 2018; and that he be retired on 1 April 2018, with entitlement to retirement pay and benefits commencing on that date at the grade of lieutenant (0-3E). Petitioner shall be issued a new DD Form 214 with the following changes: Type of separation changed to "Retired," character of service be changed to "Honorable," the narrative reason for separation be changed to "Sufficient Service for Retirement," the separation authority be changed to "MILPERSMAN par. 1810-010," the separation code be changed to "RBD," and the reentry code changed to "NIA." Block 4a will read "LTJG," block 4b will read "02E," block 12b will read "2018 04 01," and block 12h "2012 07 01." If, at a later date, Petitioner is promoted to the grade of lieutenant (03E), he shall be issued a new DD Form 214 with the following changes: Type of separation changed to "Retired," character of service be changed to "Honorable," the narrative reason for separation be changed to "Sufficient Service for Retirement," the separation authority be changed to "MILPERSMAN par. 1810-010," the separation code be changed to "RBD," and the reentry code changed to "N/A." Block 4a will read "LT," block 4b will read "03E," block 12b will read "2018 04 01," and block 12h "2014 07 01." The Defense Finance and Accounting Service is authorized to pay all monies lawfully found to be due as a result of the above corrections to Petitioner's naval record. That a copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner' s naval record. That, upon request, the Department of Veterans Affairs be informed that Petitioner's original application was received by the Board on 17 June 2015. 5. It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above-entitled matter. 6. The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review and action. 4/23/2019 Executive Director Reviewed, Board Recommendation "A" Approved (Set aside and remove NJP and all derogatory material, restore all corresponding rights and privileges, retroactive promotion to 0-2E, and full retirement benefits at 0-2E on 1 Dec 15) -OR- Reviewed, Board Recommendation "B" Approved (Upgrade to Honorable, but no set aside or remove NJP and all derogatory material, no restoration of all corresponding rights and privileges, no retroactive promotion to 0-2E, and no retirement) -OR- Reviewed, Executive Director Recommendation Approved (Set aside and remove NJP and all derogatory material, restore all corresponding rights and privileges, retroactive promotion to 0-2E, and full retirement benefits at 0 -2E, unless promoted via approved supplemental 0-3 AFQOL-if approved, promote to 0- 3E, retire as 0-3E on 1 Apr 18) OR _______________________Reviewed, All Recommendations Disapproved (Discharge remains GEN) Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) •