DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 0318-19 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 with attachments 1. Pursuant to the provisions of the reference, Petitioner, a former enlisted service member, filed the enclosure with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) requesting the Board upgrade her characterization of service, change her narrative reason for separation, and “exclude” her misconduct. 2. The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 19 December 2019, and, pursuant to its regulations, determined the 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 naval service records, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 3. 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 regulations within the Department of the Navy. b. Although the enclosure was not filed in a timely manner, it is in the interest of justice to review the application on its merits. c. Petitioner enlisted in the Navy on 25 March 1997. On 29 May 1998, she received nonjudicial punishment for two periods of unauthorized absence (UA), missing movement, and willful dereliction of dutyby “willfully failing to provide adequate child care, as it was her duty to do.” Subsequently, she was notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and parenthood. After she waived her procedural rights, Petitioner’s commanding officer (CO) recommended she be discharged with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service due commission of a serious offense and parenthood. Her record is incomplete in that it does not contain discharge authority documentation but review of her DD Form 214 indicates the discharge authority directed she be discharged by reason of misconduct with an OTH characterization of service. On 13 August 1998, she was discharged. d. Petitioner contends her discharge was “for personal reasons” and “not for good order and discipline.” She further contends she was never informed of the NavyFamily Care Policy, and even if she had been made aware of it, contends she was not allowed the protections of it. Petitioner provides detailed discussion of her family situation at the time of her alleged misconduct, specifically noting that she was a single-parent, the father of the toddler was an enlisted Marine who could not care for the child, and she had no one that could serve as the guardian of her young child while she was on sea duty. She further contends that her female chief petty officer (CPO) had personal issues with her, did not mentor her, and talked to her in a rude, abrasive, argumentative, and disrespectful manner. A signed affidavit was also provided by Petitioner’s LeadingChief Petty Officer (LCPO) which attests to the major issues Petitioner experienced at the hands of her CPO and that she was “punished to prove a point”. The LCPO further attests to the fact Petitioner never absented herself without authority and did not miss ship’s movement which he knows to be the truth because he was on duty when the leave request was made and approved. e. Review of Petitioner’s service record did not reveal documentation which recorded the 14-22 May 1998 UA. Additionally, Petitioner provided a copy of an approved leave chit for the period of 15-22 May 1998. Further, the record does not contain any documentation reflecting Petitioner was informed of the Navy’s Family Care policy or ordered to comply. The record did contain a memo from the Executive Officer (XO) to the CO stating Petitioner “reported on board” and “performed well” but then had to assume custody of her two-year old son because her aunt did not want to care for him. The memo further states “she is using the single parent issue as a means to get out of the service” and “she is the frontrunner of an anticipated surge of other single parents who may use their status to get out of deployment, and possibly the Navy.” The XO recommended separation with an OTH stating he “firmly believe that if we do not send a message with this individual we will be hit with an onslaught of followers” so I “do not want to make this easy for her or them and I want them to really think about future employment with an OTH.” CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, theBoard concludes Petitioner’s request warrants relief. The Board considered Petitioner’s contentions and statement, the signed affidavit of her LCPO, and the XO’s memo to the CO memorializing his reasoning for the OTH discharge. Noting the XO’s strong language and the noted personal issues Petitioner’s CPO had against her, coupled with Petitioner’s explanation of her personal difficulties finding a guardian or childcare provider for her toddler, the Board determined Petitioner’s OTH discharge was unjust and her misconduct should be mitigated but not “excluded” from her record. RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 indicating the characterization of service as “honorable,” narrative reason for separation as “secretarial authority,” separation code as “JFF,” and separation authority as “MILPERSMAN 1910-164”. 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 application was received by the Board on 3 December 2018. 4. 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. 5. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section 6(e) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulation, Section 723.6(e)) and having assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby announced that the foregoing corrective action, taken under the authority of the reference, has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.