ex- MAJ, 
	
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20250325
Characterization of Service Received:  
Narrative Reason for Discharge:  Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentlemen. 
Authority for Discharge:  SECNAVINST 1920.6D 

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:	
Narrative Reason change to:  REQUESTED BUT NOT SPECIFIED
Reentry Code change to:  REQUESTED, BUT NOT SPECIFIED

Summary of Service
Prior Service:
Inactive: NONE		Active:	 20081003 – 20081211 HON (To accept commission in the same branch of service) 

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Appointment:  20081212	Age:  
Years Contracted:  Indefinite
Date of Discharge:  20230801	Highest Rank:  LCDR
Length of Service:  14 Year(s)     Month(s)   20 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  NFIR
Officer’s Fitness reports:  Available

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  Pistol  LoA NMUC NDSM ACM (w/1 Star) GWOTSM SSDR (2) NATO Medal-ISAF Afghanistan  

Periods of UA:  NONE
Periods of CONF:  NONE
Other Time Lost per DD214:  NONE

SCM:    SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:    CC:   NJP:  NONE

Retention Warning Counseling:  1

- 20220216:	For violation of article 133, Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentlemen. 

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

	DD 214:		Service/Medical Record:		Other Records:	
	Employment:		Finances:		Education/Training:	
	Health/Medical Records:		Rehabilitation/Treatment:		Criminal Records:	
	Personal Documentation:		Community Service:		References:	
	Department of VA letter:		Other Documentation:	

Additional Statements

	From Applicant:		From/To Representation:		From/To Congress member:	

Types of Witnesses Who Testified

	Expert:  			Character:    

	Witness E-1:			Witness C-1:	
	Witness E-2:			Witness C-2:

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6D (ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF OFFICERS), effective 24 July 2019 until Present, 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 11 May 2018.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Manual 5420.1 of 29 September 2020 (Standards for the execution of the Naval Discharge Review Board).

 

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant requests any recorded entry of the preliminary inquiry, the command investigation, the notification and 
Allied documents/endorsements for a show of cause hearing, the Board of Inquiry proceedings to include all government and applicant evidence – both documentary and testimonial, the report of BOI to include the record of proceedings and all marine Corps command endorsements, the secretarial action, all counseling entries and the reason for separation found in his BIOR as part of the 3270 MCTFS.
2.	The Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable.
3.	
Discussion

Date:  20250905		Location:  WASHINGTON D.C.	Representation:  

The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB), under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.  In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  The Board completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process to ensure the pertinent standards of equity and propriety were met.

The Applicant's record of service included:

20220216:    For violation of article 133, Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentlemen.

:  The Applicant requests any recorded entry of the preliminary inquiry, the command investigation, the notification and allied documents/endorsements for a show of cause hearing, the Board of Inquiry proceedings to include all government and applicant evidence – both documentary and testimonial, the report of BOI to include the record of proceedings and all marine Corps command endorsements, the secretarial action, all counseling entries and the reason for separation found in his BIOR as part of the 3270 MCTFS.

The NDRB does not have the authority to remove documents from an Applicant’s OMPF.  The Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) is the authoritative body to remove derogatory material from an official record, and the restoration of rank, grade, or rating.  The BCNR will review the case of a person who is in a Reserve component, and who contends that the release from active duty should have been honorable.  The Applicant may refer to the addendum page below for additional information.

:  The Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable.

The NDRB reviews the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge individually, on a case-by-case basis.  If such a review reveals an impropriety or inequity, relief is in order.  Regulations permit relief on equitable grounds if the Applicant’s discharge is inconsistent with standards of discipline of the Naval Service.  

When reviewing discharges, the Board considers the standards for determining characterization of service where an Honorable characterization of service is warranted when the quality of a member’s service generally meets the standard of acceptable conduct and performance for Naval personnel.  Further, an honorable discharge characterization does not require flawless military service; many veterans are separated with an honorable characterization despite some relatively minor or infrequent misconduct.  A General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge is warranted when the quality of the member’s service has been honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member’s service record.  An Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge is warranted when a member engages in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service. 

In accordance with the above, the Board found the Applicant’s service generally meets the standard of acceptable conduct and performance for naval personnel as stated on his current DD214.  The Board considered the Applicant’s overall capacity to serve; his entire military performance and conduct; the nature of the separation action and evidence surrounding the accusations; the nexus between the established fact pattern known at the time, and the amount of evidentiary proof to pursue a separation action.  The Applicant was separated with an honorable discharge from the U.S. Marine Corps Reserves for violation of Article 133 (Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman) (x2 specifications).  The Applicant was accused by the Government of, and separated for, a “reason to believe that he had one or more sexually transmitted infections (STI) prior to his relationship with an intimate partner….and distributed one or more nude images of an intimate partner without her consent.”  At the time, the complainant was an active-duty U.S. Air Force Major, who, after the consenting, sexual, intimate relationship ended, she filed an Inspector General complaint alleging that the Applicant distributed partially nude images without her consent.

The Board identified that the Air Force Major was the only person who gave statements against the Applicant.  The Board recognized that the Government relied on “impressions of the Air Force Major’s credibility” and that because she is “an officer in the U.S. Air Force, she faces far greater jeopardy by lying.” It appeared that the Government used a subjective application of credibility to imply that the Applicant was less credible, with less at stake, because he was a reservist.  The Board found that the Applicant was separated from the Marine Corps because he unknowingly contracted a STI and sent a partially nude image of his intimate partner to a private, trusted friend.  This would infer her credibility, as a U.S. Air Force Major, is in question of conduct unbecoming an officer and a lady thereby validating the Government’s assumption that “she faces far greater jeopardy by lying.”  The Command’s justification centered on the “commission of a military or civilian offense which could be punished by confinement of six months or more and any other misconduct which would require specific intent for conviction.” This would imply that the accusations against the Applicant were, in fact, so egregious to fall under the criteria of six months, or more, of confinement for distribution of an unknown number of partially nude images and knowingly transmitting a STI.  The Board also considered the totality of the Applicant’s service which included no other misconduct or questionable behavior, a combat deployment in support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM subsequently awarded with the Afghanistan Campaign Medal with 1 star, the NATO Medal-ISAF Afghanistan Medal, a Navy Meritorious Unit Citation, the National Defense and Global War on Terrorism Service Medals, a Rifle Marksmanship Badge and a Pistol Sharpshooter Badge.  The Board also considered that the Applicant’s lapse in judgement to distribute nude images, provided to him by the complainant, was inappropriate; however, the Board did not find that it rose to constitute a significant departure of military conduct in the context of his fourteen-years, seven months, and twenty-day career.  The Board also considered that it was punishment enough to be separated from the Marine Corps under those circumstances and not make it to retirement.   

The Applicant was a U.S. Marine reservist not on active-duty orders, nor supporting the Marine Corps on any official business.  The Applicant’s service record, supported with additional documentation, provided sufficient evidence to support the Applicant’s claim of inequity.  The Board concluded that the procedural circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s separation from service did not include the medical records, of both parties involved, to support a claim that the Applicant was malicious, intentional, and deliberate, in knowingly transmitting a sexual infection to his consensual partner.  According to the Applicant’s service record, the Board recognized that the Command’s case, against the Applicant, added the STI, when the Air Force Major submitted the IG complaint alleging distribution of partially nude images without her consent and not for the STI.  This resulted in the Command accusing the Applicant of conduct unbecoming for two infractions.

Additionally, the Board noted the current social trend for using social media dating sites, such as “Hinge,” is the norm for 21st century social interaction.  The sharing of imagery among friends, families, and the public is at unprecedented levels.  The Board noticed the Applicant did not have a signed, NAVMC 118 / Pg 11 entry acknowledging the ALL MARINE MESSAGE (ALMAR) 008/17 SOCIAL MEDIA GUIDANCE – UNOFFICIAL INTERNET POSTS, in which the Government would have used against the Applicant for knowing, and violating, the Marine Corps’ policy on social media; in the absence of this acknowledgment, and the facts surrounding the case that the Applicant is a reservist, it is reasonable to presume that if the Applicant did acknowledge ALMAR 008/17 he would have, in fact, not violated the policy; therefore, would not have distributed such imagery evidenced by a spotless career in the Marine Corps.  Nonetheless, the Command justified the Applicant’s separation from service by overlooking the conventions of online dating and the immediacy of sharing imagery in privacy, and the lack of veracity and selective evidence used against the Applicant.

Finally, the Board concurred with the Applicant’s proposition/complaint that a stigmatizing discharge based upon non-felonious military misconduct is not sufficient grounds for a lifetime of punitive punishment.  Therefore, stating in the simplest of terms, the Board held the Applicant’s overall service which was deemed honorable should be changed to a commensurate narrative reason for discharge.  More specifically, the Board weighed the nature of the Applicant’s disciplinary infractions against the Applicant’s overall military performance and held that although the Applicant’s service was not flawless, the infraction was not so discrediting that his service could not be deemed with an appropriate narrative reason for separation to complement his awarded honorable character of service.  The Board was led to believe that the Applicant was in pursuit of a twenty-year retirement, which is now much more difficult to obtain based on his untimely separation of service, and is, in and of itself, a punishment.  
Decision

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s issues, summary of service,  record entries, and discharge process, the Board determined the awarded characterization of service shall  HONORABLE, the narrative reason for separation shall  SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY with a corresponding separation code of JFF1.  The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of the discharge.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum for additional information.

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

Additional NDRB Reviews: After receiving a NDRB Document Review, an Applicant remains eligible for a Personal Appearance/Telephonic Hearing if the application is received by the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s date of discharge.  The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claim(s) related to their discharge as well as evidence of post-service accomplishments.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing by an Attorney (or Advocate) is recommended but not required.  There are veterans organizations such as the American Legion and the Disabled American Veterans that are willing to provide guidance to former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade.  However, if you have been discharged for more than 15 years, already had a personal appearance hearing, or otherwise exhausted your opportunity to be heard by the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490, or http://www.secnav.navy.mil/mra/bcnr/Pages/default.aspx for further review.

Appeal Procedures on NDRB Decision: If you contest the NDRB’s decision in your case AND you already contested the NDRB’s previous decision at a Personal Appearance Hearing or otherwise exhausted your opportunity before the NDRB (or it has been more than 15 years since your discharge), the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490, or http://www.secnav.navy.mil/mra/bcnr/Pages/default.aspx for further review.  The BCNR is the highest level of administrative review within the Department of the Navy/Marine Corps to correct errors or injustices to member’s records.

Complaint Procedures on Format: If you believe the decision in your case is ambiguous, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional document requirements of DoD Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Instruction to the Joint Service Review Activity (JSRA), OUSD (P&R) PI-LP, The Pentagon, Washington, DC  20301-4000.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the DoD Instruction 1332.28 before submitting such a complaint.  This complaint procedure does not permit a challenge on the merits of the NDRB’s decision; the JSRA is designed solely to ensure that the NDRB decisional documents meet applicable requirements for clarity and responsiveness.  Therefore, if you are contesting the merits of the NDRB’s decision and already had a NDRB personal appearance hearing or otherwise exhausted your opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may appeal/petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490, or http://www.secnav.navy.mil/mra/bcnr/Pages/default.aspx for further review.

Service [VA] Benefits: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of facilitating access to VA benefits.  Regulations limit the NDRB’s review solely to a determination of the propriety, equity, and clemency of a discharge.  Consequently, the Applicant should petition the VA, which determines eligibility for post-service benefits.  The VA conducts its own determination of eligibility based on service records and input from an Applicant upon their request.  (See www.va.gov/discharge-upgrade-instructions).  Therefore, if the NDRB grants a change to a discharge, the NDRB will notify the Commander, Navy Personnel Command or Commandant of the Marine Corps that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate; however, it is the Applicant’s responsibility to ensure these changes are incorporated into the record by the respective Service Headquarters.  Further, it is the Applicant’s sole responsibility to submit these changes to the VA for a determination of eligibility for VA Benefits.  Finally, the Applicant should refer to the Veterans Administration website (https://www.va.gov/) for information regarding VA benefits and healthcare.  Additionally, Veterans in acute suicidal crisis can go to any VA or non-VA health care facility for emergency health care at no cost – including inpatient or crisis residential care for up to 30 days and outpatient care for up to 90 days.  Veterans do not need to be enrolled in the VA system to use this benefit.  In order to find the nearest VA office to receive assistance with determining VA eligibility/access, the Applicant should refer to https://www.va.gov/find-locations. 

Employment/Educational Opportunities: The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.

Reenlistment/RE-code: The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.  An unfavorable “RE-CODE” is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment.  A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.

Medical Conditions and Misconduct: DoD disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation.  Appropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons.  Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board, and is processed subsequently for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings.  If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct or for any basis wherein an Other Than Honorable discharge is authorized, the medical board report is filed in the member’s terminated health record.  Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or other medical related reasons.  Only the BCNR can grant this type of narrative reason change.

Automatic Upgrades: There is no law or regulation that provides for an unfavorable discharge to be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct subsequent to leaving naval service.

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and/or Traumatic Brain Injury: For all claims involving PTSD and/or TBI, the NDRB’s review implemented the guidance set forth in the SECDEF Memorandum of 3 September 2014 (Supplemental guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder).  In accordance with U.S. Code, Title X, Section 1553 (d)(1) & (d)(2), the NDRB included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist and accorded the case sufficient priority to achieve an expedited resolution and a final decision.  If the Applicant’s claim of PTSD/TBI was based in whole or in part on sexual trauma, intimate partner violence, or spousal abuse, the NDRB obtained a review by a psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker with training on mental health issues associated with PTSD/TBI or other trauma.  

Post-Service Conduct: The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent 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 during Board reviews.  Documentation to support a post-service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s birth certificates (if applicable); character witness statements; documentation of community or church service; certification of non-involvement with civil authorities; evidence of financial stability or letters of good standing from banks, credit card companies, or other financial institutions; attendance at or completion of higher education (official transcripts); and documentation of a drug-free lifestyle.   The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate that in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

Issues Concerning Bad-Conduct Discharges (BCD): Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts, issues relating to the Applicant’s innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief.  With respect to a discharge adjudged by a special court-martial, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency.  Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed.  The NDRB does not have the jurisdictional authority to review a discharge or dismissal resulting from a general court-martial.

Board Membership: The names and votes of the members of the NDRB 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.

Military Sexual Trauma: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) uses the term "military sexual trauma" (MST) to refer to experiences of sexual assault or repeated, threatening sexual harassment experienced while on federal active duty, active duty for training, or inactive duty training.  To get confidential one-on-one help please contact the MST Coordinator at your nearest VA Medical Center or Call Safe Helpline at 1-877-995-5247 or visit www.mentalhealth.va.gov/msthome.asp.

Reporting Military Sexual Trauma: To report a military sexual trauma, you can make an anonymous report to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) by Text or Online.  The NCIS Tip Line provides service members, veterans and civilians a safe, discreet and ANONYMOUS option to report criminal and force protection threats within the USN and USMC without concerns of retaliation.  To report a crime by Text: Text 274637 (CRIMES); Type “NCIS” at the top of the message; and include as much detail as possible to ensure your tip can effectively be investigated.  To send your ANONYMOUS Tip via the online, go to https://www.tipsubmit.com/webtipsNAV.aspx?AgencyID=840.

Suicide Prevention: Veterans in emotional crisis or their loved ones can call the free and confidential Veterans Crisis Line at 1-800-273-8255 (then press 1); or chat online at http://www.veteranscrisisline.net, or send a text message to 838255 to connect with a caring, qualified Veteran Affairs Responder who can deal with any immediate crisis.  Additionally, Veterans in acute suicidal crisis can go to any VA or non-VA health care facility for emergency health care at no cost; you can use this benefit regardless of your discharge status, or enrollment in VA health care.  In order to find the nearest VA office to receive assistance, go to https://www.va.gov/find-locations/?facilityType=health.