Docket No: 1934-21 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER MEMBER XXX-XX-USN Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552 (b) 10 U.S.C. 654 (Repeal) (c) UNSECDEF Memo of 20 Sep 11 (Correction of Military Records Following Repeal of 10 U.S.C. 654 (d) USECDEF Memo, “Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations,” of 25 July 2018 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 with attachments (2) Case summary 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board), requesting that her naval record be corrected by upgrading her characterization of service, changing the narrative reason for separation and separation authority to “secretarial authority,” changing the RE-4 reentry code to RE-1, changing her grade/rank from E-3/DCFN to E-4/DC3, and changing her discharge date from 18 January 2002 to February 2002 on her Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214). 2. The Board consisting of reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 26 April 2021 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined the corrective action indicated below should be taken. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Petitioner’s application together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of Petitioner’s naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, to include the 25 July 2018 guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness regarding equity, injustice or clemency determinations (Wilkie Memo). 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 enclosure (1) 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 U.S. Navy on 23 February 2000. On 12 February 2001, Petitioner absented herself from her command until she surrendered on 13 February 2001. On 5 March 2001, Petitioner received non-judicial punishment for the unauthorized absence. On 25 September 2001, Petitioner was informed that a harassment claim was filed against her by another sailor. At that time, Petitioner indicated to the investigating officer (IO) that she had engaged in a sexual encounter with the other female sailor. Subsequently, Petitioner was notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of homosexual conduct and commission of a serious offense, at which point, Petitioner provided a written statement to the commanding officer in lieu of requesting an administrative discharge board. Petitioner was further notified that the commanding officer recommended an honorable characterization of service. In the Petitioner’s written statement, she stated that she does not deny the previous statement she made to the IO; however, eluded to a sexual encounter that occurred one time with the other sailor. On 2 June 2002, the discharge authority directed discharge due to misconduct, specifically, homosexual conduct admission, with a general, under honorable conditions, characterization of service. Petitioner was discharged on 18 January 2002 and assigned an RE-4 (not recommended for reenlistment) reentry code. d. Petitioner contends she never made an admission to homosexual conduct, but the other sailor made an admission about them allegedly engaging in homosexual behavior. Petitioner states she does not recall ever confirming or denying what she was accused of. Petitioner further states she believes “the discharge was wrote up that way” and “was a made up excuse” because of a conversation she had with her physician about being medically discharged. I e. Petitioner contends that she passed the test to become an E4 in October 2000 and was wearing the grade/rank of E-4/DC3, and getting paid for her new rank at the time of discharge. f. Reference (c) sets forth the Department of the Defense’s current policies, standards, and procedures for correction of military records following the “don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) repeal of 10 U.S.C. 654. It provides service Discharge Review Boards with guidance to grant requests to change the characterization of service to “honorable,” narrative reason for discharge to “secretarial authority,” SPD code to “JFF,” and reenlistment code to “RE-1J,” when the original discharge was based solely on DADT or a similar policy in place prior to enactment of it and there are no aggravating factors in the record, such as misconduct. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of references (b) through (d), the Board concludes Petitioner’s request warrants partial relief. The Board noted Petitioner’s record supports that she was discharged on the basis of homosexuality; however, with aggravating factors. Specifically, the Board took note of the sailor’s claim of harassment that detailed the circumstances surrounding the encounter between the two sailors. In reviewing the Petitioner’s request to change her grade/rank from E-3/DCFN to E-4/DC3 and her discharge date to February 2002, the Board noted that the Petitioner did not provide any documentation to support either claim. The Board further noted that the Petitioner’s service record did not contain information to warrant an upgrade in grade/rank or a change in her discharge date. RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 and new discharge certificate indicating the narrative reason for separation as “secretarial authority,” separation code as “JFF,” and separation authority as “MILPERSMAN 1910-164”. No further changes be made to Petitioner’s record. A copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record. 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 Regulations, 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 reference (a), has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy. 4/30/2021 Executive Director