DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

SMS
Docket No: 6711-08
31 December 2008

From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR)
To: Secretary of the Navy

Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER sfgueaaaiiaagggt erases,

Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552

  

Encl: (1) Case Summary with advisory opinion
(2) Subject's naval record

1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former
member of the United States Marine Corps Reserve, applied to this
Board requesting to be reinstated on active duty, remove the
nonjudicial punishment (NUP) dated 10 May 2006, remove the fitness
reports for 24 May to 31 October 2005, 1 November 2005 to

3 February 2006 and 1 to 10 May 2006, and correct the record to show
that she was not discharged on 1 November 2006, but continued to
serve on active duty. Copies of the NUP and fitness reports are at
Tab A.

2. The Board, consisting of Ms S77. Men, and

Mr. SMM eviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice
on 10 December 2008, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that
the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the
available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the
Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, advisory opinions,
and 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. Petitioner’s application was filed in a timely manner.

c. On 18 May 2003, Petitioner was appointed a second lieutenant
in the Marine Corps Reserve after more than eight years of prior
honorable active enlisted service in the Marine Corps.

d. On 23 January 2004, Petitioner reported to the Marine Wing
Headquarters Squadron 2 (MWHS-2) and was assigned duties as an
adjutant. On 11 April 2004, she received a fitness report that
stated in essence that she had performed duties as an adjutant before
attending the Adjutant's Course, had unlimited potential, and was
enthusiastically recommended for retention and promotion. On

3 June 2004, Petitioner completed the Adjutant's Course with a grade
point average of 96.68%. On 4 June 2004, she reported back to
MWHS-2, at which time she resumed her duties as adjutant under the
command of Lieutenant Colonel (LtCol) S---. She subsequently
received exemplary fitness reports and was credited with having
turned a wandering administrative section into a well-oiled machine.

e. During February 2005, Petitioner and Chief Warrant Officer 4
(CWO4) B---, both members of the same command, deployed to Iraq and
subsequently socialized together as well as with other peers.

f. On 10 May 2005, Petitioner was awarded the "2005 Marine Corps
Aviation Association Earle Hattaway Award for Marine Aviation Ground
Officer of the Year" and on 23 May 2005, she was appointed a first
lieutenant in the Marine Corps Reserve at which time she received
another exemplary fitness report.

g. During May 2005, Petitioner departed Iraq. Based on
CWO4 B---'s statement provided to BCNR, it was at this time that he
confided to his wife that he had developed feelings for Petitioner,
and his wife assumed that Petitioner had feelings for him. He stated
that his wife then began calling Petitioner several times a day
threatening to go to the commanding general (CG) and that Petitioner
assured his wife that she was "just friends" with her husband and
that she was terribly sorry that CWO4 B--- misconstrued their
friendship as being more than that. LtCol S---'s subsequent
testimony at CWO04 B---'s Board of Inquiry (BOI) stated in essence
that after it was brought to his attention that there may be an
inappropriate relationship between Petitioner and CWO4 B---, he
initiated an investigation. During June 2005, Petitioner attempted
to terminate the increasing volatile situation at her unit by
requesting reassignment, and in response, her occupational field
sponsor tried to assign her to another unit, but the reassignment was

terminated when LtCol S--- intervened with the chief of staff.

h. On 3 July 2005, LtCol S--- ordered Petitioner to have no
further contact with CWO4 B---. On 7 July 2005, LtCol S--- issued a
military protective order (MPO) to CWO4 B--- ordering him to have no

further contact with Petitioner.

i. During October 2005, CWO4 B--- departed Iraq. As previously
stated, Petitioner had already departed Iraq during May 2005.

j. On 7 October 2005, Mrs. B---'s civil charges of communicating a
threat to Petitioner were dismissed.

k. Petitioner was unaware that Brigadier General (BGen) M---,
Commanding General, Second Marine Aircraft Wing (2d MAW) and
Mrs. B---, communicated by electronic mail (e-mail) during the period
23 to 25 October 2005, regarding her husband, CWO4 B--- about
Petitioner, and her personal mental conditions, and in doing so
copied LtCol S--- on the e-mails. On 25 October 2005, Mrs. B--- sent
her last e-mail of record to BGen M--- in which she stated that she
had not been completely honest with him, that her husband told her
that he owed everything to the Marine Corps, and asked for his help
and guidance. BGen M---'s reply on 25 October 2005, stated as
follows:

...First off, you're not "emailing a general,"
you're emailing a friend. Do not worry about
George [CWO4 B---, her husband] and a court
martial [sic]. He'll only go to a court

martial [sic] if the investigation finds

wrongful conduct, and then it's not a matter

of record unless found guilty. The investigation
process is very fair and inpartial [sic], and

then it only makes a recommendation. So what I

am saying is that I have all the confidence that
if there's nothing to any of this, then it will

go away. There's a distinct difference between

a crime and a mistake; [CWO4 B---] likely made

a mistake, not a crime [sic]. I know [CWO4 B---]
is a good man - one can't go to war with someone
(twice) and not learn something about them. I'd
move toward the sound of canons [sic] with him
anytime. My hope and prayer is that all this will
bond the two of you together all the more. 65So,
what should you do? You should relax and let this
take its course. You should also stop laying all
the blame on yourself - there's plenty to go around.
s/f Boomer...

1. On 31 October 2005, Petitioner received a semi-annual fitness
report in which LtCol S--- stated that she was a solid performer, had
a positive attitude, and the administrative processes had improved
due to her efforts, specifically, she forced the unit to utilize
Marine on-line capabilities, but ranked her as the lowest performer.

m. On 30 November 2005, LtCol S--- reissued a no contact order for
Petitioner and CWO4 B--- after the investigation that he had
initiated in Iraq was completed which found no evidence to support
allegations of adultery or fraternization. A non-punitive letter of
caution was issued to her as well.

n. On 12 December 2005, CWO4 B--- went to Petitioner's civilian
family home at night and was told by her that he was violating the
MPO and to leave. He persisted in trying to talk and after she
realized that he appeared to be intoxicated, she allowed him inside
to sleep in an extra room.

o. On 3 January 2006, Mrs. B--- called LtCol S--- and informed him
that she had evidence to show that CWO4 B--- had contact with
Petitioner on 12 December 2005. Specifically, a global positioning
system device placed on CWO4 B---'s vehicle by a private investigator
hired by Mrs. B--- showed that his car had been at Petitioner's
civilian residence on 12 December 2005.

p. On 3 February 2006, LtCol S--- relieved Petitioner of her
duties as adjutant due to her failure to satisfy billet requirements
and assessed her as being "unsatisfactory." She was then assigned
duties as a special projects officer. Per CWO4 B---'s subsequent
testimony and his occupational field sponsor's testimony at his BOI,
CWO4 B--- was not relieved of his duties, but continued to serve in
his billet.

q. On 7 May 2006, a Memorandum of Pretrial Agreement (MPA) was
signed by Petitioner in which she agreed to accept NJP and resign her
commission if the general court-martial (GCM) convening authority
dismissed her failure to obey a MPO charge.

r. On 10 May 2006, BGen M--- administered NUP to Petitioner for
failure to obey a lawful order and as punishment, issued her a
punitive letter of censure. She also received an adverse fitness
report based on the NUP.

s. On 10 May 2006, BGen M-~-- administered NJP to CWO4 B--- for
failure to obey a lawful order and as punishment, issued hima
punitive letter of censure. About ten days later, CWO4 B---
submitted his request for retirement to LtCol S---, per his
subsequent testimony at his BOI.

t. On 25 May 2006, Petitioner submitted her resignation in lieu of
processing for administrative separation for cause based on the NJP
of 10 May 2006, and further requested an honorable characterization
of service. On 9 June 2006, BGen M--- forwarded Petitioner's request
and recommended an honorable characterization of service.

u. On 6 July 2006, the CG of II Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF)
notified Petitioner that he was recommending her for administrative
separation by reason of misconduct, and a general characterization of
service. On 13 July 2006, Petitioner acknowledged the separation
recommendation and requested to tender a resignation in lieu of
administrative separation as she had agreed with the MPA. On
21 July 2006, LtCol S--- recommended that Petitioner be discharged
under honorable conditions (Note: under honorable conditions is a
general characterization of service). On 24 July 2006, Petitioner
further responded to the notification of recommendation for
administrative separation by requesting an unqualified resignation
with an honorable characterization of service. She also objected to
the notification procedure and requested a BOI. On 7 August 2006,
the new CG of 2d MAW forwarded Petitioner's unqualified resignation
request dated 24 July 2006, and recommended an honorable
characterization of service. On 24 August 2006, the new CG of IT
MEF, modified the subject line toa recommendation for administrative
separation, an involuntary separation due to misconduct, and an
honorable characterization of service.
v. On 2 October 2006, CWO4 B---'s BOLI convened and found
misconduct, but also decided that his misconduct did not warrant
separation. A portion of the BOI report states in essence as
follows:

(1) CWO4 B---'s counsel stated to the BOI that BGen M---
recommended that no show cause occur for him, but that the officers
at the three star level required a BOI for everyone. However, he
said that should not be interpreted by the BOI that they are expected

to recommend discharge. CWO4 B---'s counsel also read a letter to
the BOI that was provided by BGen M---, which stated in essence that
however much CWO4 B---'s actions and poor judgment disappointed him,

he did not believe that they warranted his separation from the Corps
via the BOI, and that his request to retire would already cut his
career short. BGen M--- said that in his opinion the NUP is a fair
and just resolution of the matter. His counsel further stated that
CWO4 B--- hoped to retire next summer, he made a mistake, and that
this was neither an adultery case nor a fraternization case, but the
disobeying of a lawful order. His counsel also provided e-mail's
that the government did not disclose to the BOI member's, which
included an e-mail from Mrs. B--- to BGen M--- explaining some of her
new concerns about what she stated and an admission that she lied
about some details.

(2) When LtCol S--- was questioned by CWO4 B---'s counsel
regarding the appropriate outcome concerning CWO4 B---'s disobedience
of a lawful order, he stated that the NJP was an appropriate
disposition and he recommended that he be allowed to retire. When
LtCol S--- was questioned by CWO4 B---'s counsel regarding
Petitioner, he agreed that he made a positive recommendation for her
by recommending that she be honorably discharged, and further stated
that she was being released under the auspices of a probationary
officer and that she just needs to move on with her life.

(3) When CWO4 B---'s occupational field sponsor was questioned
by his counsel, regarding the affect of the charges and his
performance, he stated in essence that his performance had not been
affected and he had continued to perform his duties.

w. On 5 October 2006, the Deputy Commandant of the Marine
Corps Manpower and Reserve Affairs (DC M&RA) denied Petitioner's
resignation request and recommended an involuntary honorable
discharge as determined by the service Secretary. On
13 October 2006, the Secretary of the Navy approved this
recommendation, and directed an involuntary honorable discharge by
reason of Secretarial authority.

x. On 20 October 2006, CWO4 B---'s BOT finding of misconduct and
recommendation that he not be separated was forwarded via the chain
of command.

y. On 1 November 2006, Petitioner was honorably discharged by
reason of Secretarial authority and received no separation pay.
z. On 8 November 2006, the CG, 2d MEF concurred with CWO4 B---'s
BOI recommendation and on 11 December 2006, the DC M&RA closed his
case.

aa. In her application, Petitioner's counsel states that after
CWO4 B---'s wife contacted Petitioner's commanding officer accusing
her of having an affair with her husband, an investigation then
ensued which found no evidence to support the allegation. He further

states that after LtCol S--- issued a MPO to CWO4 B---, he
nonetheless drove to Petitioner's civilian residence unannounced and
was told to leave, but after she realized that he appeared to be
intoxicated, she and her husband allowed CWO4 B--- to sleep ina
guest room, and that Mrs. B--- then informed the command of this
contact which resulted in the disparate outcome of the two cases. As
such, Petitioner's counsel further states that two officers were
similarly situated cannot be treated differently since Petitioner was
not entitled to have her case heard by a BOI. When CWO4 B---'s BOI
heard the evidence and circumstances of the single offense of
violation of a lawful order, it concluded that the circumstances did
not warrant his separation from the Marine Corps and most
importantly, the government argued to his BOT that he was the
"instigator" and further argued that his conduct was even more
serious than Petitioner's. As such, Petitioner requests that her
discharge be set aside and that she be reappointed in the Marine

Corps.

bb. Attached to enclosure (1) is an advisory opinion from the
Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Military Law Branch, Judge Advocate
Division (JAM7) dated 16 April 2007, which states, in part, as

£Eollows:

... [BCNR] requested an advisory opinion on
[Petitioner's]...request's [sic] to replace her
separation code along with the narrative
reasoning behind her separation. In the
alternative, [Petitioner] request's [sic]

to be reinstated as a First Lieutenant [sic],
with back pay from the date of her discharge.

... [Petitioner's] request for relief should be
denied as her administrative separation was
conducted in accordance with applicable
regulations. Further, [Petitioner] does

not provide sufficient evidence of probable
material error or injustice warranting relief.

..we note that no legal error occurred in
rhe imposition of NJP or in the subsequent
administrative separation in [Petitioner's]
case.

...Federal statues [sic] allow for the
separation of commissioned officers without
the recommendation of a BOI when they have
less than five years of active duty service...
[Petitioner] was properly separated pursuant
to this statutory authority.

_.. At the time of his BOI, CWO-4 [B---] was
not yet retirement eligible, nor was he
subject to separation via the notification
procedure...CWO-4 [B---]... appeared before a
Board empowered to end a [sic] his nearly
twenty year career with not only an adverse
characterization of service and separation code,
but also without any retirement benefits. He
successfully convinced the properly convened
BOI that he should remain on active duty.
Statutorily, closing an officer misconduct
case is the only option available to a
commander after a BOI recommends retention...

...Ultimately [Petitioner] received the full
benefit of her negotiated pretrial agreement.
She was insulated from federal prosecution at

a General Court-Martial and was administratively
separated, pursuant to misconduct, with an
honorable characterization of service.

_,.The differences in conclusion [sic] of
these two cases are clearly a product of
statutory construction rather than any
inequitable perceptions or actions on the
part of the command...

cc. Attached to enclosure (1) is an advisory opinion from the HQMC
JAM7 dated 24 May 2007, which states, in part, as follows:

...[BCNR] requested an advisory opinion
on [Petitioner's] request's [sic] for
separation pay...

...In order to qualify for full severance
pay, an officer must have been involuntarily
discharged with an honorable characterization
of service and have served for more than six
years on active duty but less than 20 years
prior to separation. [Petitioner] was

involuntarily discharged from the Marine
Corps with an honorable characterization of

service and has been on continuous active duty
since October 1994 until her separation.
Notwithstanding the minimum requirements for
severance pay... [regulations] disqualifies [sic]
officers who have been separated for acts

of misconduct...
_..In this case, [Petitioner] was
separated due to misconduct. Accordingly,
we recommend that [Petitioner's] request
for separation [sic] be denied.

dd. Attached to enclosure (1) is a response from Petitioner's
counsel dated 8 August 2007, which states, in part, as follows:

_..evidence regarding the bias and prejudice
of [Brigadier] General [M---], the officer
who imposed NJP on [Petitioner], was never
disclosed...before she was offered the
opportunity to accept NUP. [E-mail's during
October 2005 between BGen M--- and Mrs. B---
were] not disclosed by the Government during
the course of the investigation or before
[Petitioner's] NJP, [BGen M---] and
[Petitioner's] accuser engage[d] in a series
of e-mail communications...

...This email does not reflect that
[Brigadier] General [M---] was acting as a
neutral and detached fact-finder...

[M---'s] failure to
with Mrs. [B---]
his apparent intent

...{Brigadier] General
disclose his friendship
was also symptomatic of

to discriminate against
basis of gender. It is
that the violation of a

[Petitioner] on the
a matter of record
lawful order was
cwo-4 [B---'s]

entirely the product of
decision to violate the order. Notwithstanding
that CW)-4[sic] [B---] was the more experienced
officer and was clearly the more culpable of
the two accused of the same offense, CWO-4
[B---] was not separated from the Marine Corps,
unlike [Petitioner]. In this case identical
offenses...received grossly disproportionate
outcomes...

(1) Included with the rebuttal is a statement to BCNR provided
by retired CWO4 B---, which states in essence that his wife became
jealous when she found out that he and Petitioner developed a
friendship while serving in Iraq and he intensified her jealousy when

he admitted to her that he had personal feelings for Petitioner. His
wife assumed that Petitioner developed the same feelings for him,
which subsequently resulted in his wife speaking with BGen M--- and

that the investigating officer assured her that CWO4 B~--- would
receive nothing more than a fine, but that Petitioner was done in the
Marine Corps.

ee. Attached to enclosure (1) is a further response from
Petitioner's counsel dated 11 September 2007, which provided
Petitioner's phone records that show no contact occurred between her
and CWO4 B--- and further states in essence that the commanding
officer and commanding general were friends with and communicated
their friendship to CWO4 B---'s wife, assisting her to the detriment
of Petitioner. He further states that the commanding general who
issued the punishment to Petitioner never disclosed his apparent
close personal relationship and friendship with Mrs. B---, as is
reflected in the e-mail exchange between the commanding general and
Mrs. B---, and the e-mails were provided to Petitioner after she had
been issued punishment. He further states that investigations
conducted by the command found no misconduct and the investigator
hired by Mrs. B--- found no activity or inappropriate relationship
between Petitioner and CWO4 B---, and the only evidence the
investigator did find was the one time violation of the order when
CWO4 B--- drove unannounced to Petitioner's residence. Petitioner's
counsel further states that her gender did apparently play a role in
how she was treated throughout the investigation process and during
the time prior to her separation. Specifically, she was relieved of
her duties, placed at a desk in which her primary job consisted of
cleaning and taking out the trash, received adverse fitness reports,
and was discharged. On the other hand, CWO4 B--- was never relieved
of his duties, but continued to serve in his position until he
retired and he did not receive an adverse fitness report.
Accordingly, Petitioner's counsel requests that the Board grant

relief.

ff. Attached to enclosure (1) is an advisory opinion from the HQMC
JAM3 dated 12 March 2008, which states, in part, as follows:

... [BCNR] requested an advisory opinion
[regarding the removal of the NJP and adverse
fitness reports] to rebut a previous advisory
opinion provided by this office...

...As stated in previous advisory opinions,
we recommend the board [sic] deny [Petitioner's]

request...

...{Petitioner's] claim of gender bias and
discrimination do not ring true in light of
the processing that occurred in the respective
cases. [Petitioner] and the warrant officer
received [NUP]. As a probationary officer,
[Petitioner] was notified that she was being
processed for separation via notification

procedures. She responded with written
materials, and was separated with an
honorable characterization of service...

...The warrant officer involved in the
process was ordered to show cause for
retention at a [BOI], which he did. The
[BOI], after a full hearing of the facts
and circumstances of the situation between
[Petitioner] and the warrant officer,
recommended that the warrant officer not

be separated from the Marine Corps. This
finding, binding on the Secretary of the Navy,
permitted the warrant officer of nineteen
years and three months of service to reach
retirement...

.,. [Petitioner's] administrative

separation from the Marine Corps due to
misconduct is legally sufficient.
[Petitioner] has not shown sufficient basis
for equitable relief. We recommend that
[Petitioner's] request be denied...

gg. Attached to enclosure (1) is an advisory opinion from the HOQMC
JAM3 dated 25 April 2008, in further response to BCNR's previous
request, which states, in part, as follows:

_..the [Performance Evaluation Review Board
(PERB) is]...the initial action agency

for fitness report appeals. JAM defers to
the opinion of PERB concerning fitness report
analysis...

...Review of the evidence provide [sic]
does not indicate any legal error in the
administration of [Petitioner's] NUP.

.,.We recommend that [Petitioner's] request
be denied...

hh. In response to a request by BCNR for an advisory opinion
regarding removal of Petitioner's adverse fitness reports, the HQMC
PERB provided an advisory opinion dated 25 August 2008, attached to
enclosure (1), which states, in part, as follows:

..it was the opinion of the PERB that the
contested fitness report should remain in
[Petitioner's] Official Military Personnel File...

ii. Attached to enclosure (1) is a response from Petitioner dated
13 October 2008, which states in essence that during her tour with
MWSS-2, she held many primary and secondary billets simultaneously
that she excelled in, was awarded on several occasions, and was never
counseled for poor performance until she received an adverse fitness
report when LtCol S--~- relieved her of her duties. She further
states that the first relief for cause fitness report that she
signed, was subsequently revised by her reporting senior and
LtCol S---, and explains the true reason that LtCol. S--- relieved
her. Specifically, the first version of the relief for cause fitness
report stated that she was counseled on a relationship with a married

LO
officer, she was married, and she was told how to improve herself,
and it further accused her of larceny. Regarding the NUP, she states
that it was not until she was faced with a felony conviction, debt,
and emotional stress with a pending court-martial, and her counsel's
statement to her that she would be administratively separated no
matter what decision she made, she felt she had no avenue to address
the injustices until her petition to the BCNR.

jj]. According to the Judge Advocate General Manual for Courts-
Martial, NIP accused notification and election of rights provides
that the accused has the right to be informed of the information
against him or her relating to the offenses alleged. Regulations
also state that the accused has the right to have made available to
them for inspection, all items of information in the nature of
physical or documentary evidence to be considered by the officer
conducting the hearing. Regulations also state that a commander who
is the accuser is disqualified to act as a convening authority and
must forward charges to a superior convening authority, and further
states that a commander is considered an accuser when he has an
interest, other than an official interest, in the prosecution of the
accused. In addition, according to regulations, the Commandant of
the Marine Corps expects all matters involving officer discipline to
be handled promptly and by the same token, it must be absolutely
clear that commanders are expected to dispose of cases consistently,
equitably, and in the interest of good order and discipline within
the boundaries established by the Manual for Courts-Martial and
regulations. Furthermore, the law and regulations allow commanders
to recommend separation of commissioned officers without the
recommendation of a BOI when they have less than five years of active
duty service. The law and regulations also allow commanders to
recommend retention in such cases.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the
Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants relief.
Specifically, the Board finds that Petitioner's contention of
injustice and disparate treatment credible. In this regard, two
officers in the same command who were both subjects of investigations
that resulted in no disciplinary action were issued orders to have no
contact with each other, which cWO4 B--- flagrantly violated and
Petitioner disobeyed when she allowed him inside her home. Both
officers subsequently had NUP by a convening authority, BGen M---,
who had an interest other than in an official capacity of CWO4 B---,
and who also withheld this information from Petitioner, and as such,
violated her rights as the accused at NUP. The Board also finds that
although regulations provide different avenues of redress for officer
misconduct and separation, BGen M---, who had a personal interest in
the outcome of both cases, initiated and influenced both
administrative processes that resulted in two distinct outcomes which
were effectively demonstrated by his contradictory recommendations.
The Board also notes that the disparate outcome of each case failed
to adhere to the Commandant of the Marine Corps! expectaticus

ii
regarding disposition of cases in a consistent and equitable manner.
The Board further finds that Petitioner's disparate treatment also
began well before she had NUP as evidenced by her relief for cause
due to her failure to satisfy billet requirements even though her
performance record clearly shows that she was highly praised by
LtCol §--- for her professional competency before he began receiving
e-mails from Mrs. B---. The Board also finds that LtCol S---'s
disparate treatment of Petitioner was demonstrated by his testimony
at CWO4 B---'s BOI. The Board also finds that CWO4 B---'s BOT that
recommended his retention, was provided copies of e-mail's between
BGen M--- and Mrs. B--- regarding the alleged misconduct, which were
withheld by the government as his counsel so stated. In addition,
the Board considers Petitioner's overall service record that included
more than 12 years of exemplary service in which she established her
professional credibility as evidenced by her appointment as a
commissioned officer, completing the requirements of the Adjutant's
Course with a 96.68% proficiency, overall exemplary fitness reports,
and receiving the "2005 Marine Corps Aviation Association Earle
Hattaway Award for Marine Aviation Ground Officer of the Year".
Therefore, the Board concludes that the NUP, administrative
separation documents, and fitness reports ending

31 October 2005, 3 February 2006, and 10 May 2006, should be removed,
and that she be reinstated as a commissioned officer on active duty
in the Marine Corps Reserve with all back pay and allowances with no
time lost shown.

RECOMMENDATION:

a. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing the
NJP dated 10 May 2006, and the punishment imposed.

b. That Petitioner's naval record be further corrected to show
that she was not discharged on 1 November 2006, but continued to
serve as a commissioned officer on active duty, and as such be paid
all back pay and allowances with no time lost.

c. That Petitioner's naval record be further corrected by
removing the administrative separation documents.

ad. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing there
from the following fitness reports and related material:

Period of Report

 

Date of Report Reporting Senior From To

30Dec05 Sees, 24May05 310ct05
30Aprd6 O1Nov05 O3Feb06
027Jun06 OiMay06 10May06

 

12
e. That there be inserted in Petitioner's naval record a
memorandum in place of the removed fitness reports containing
appropriate identifying data concerning the reports; that the
memorandum state that the reports have 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 inference as to the nature of the reports.

f. That any material or entries inconsistent with or relating to
the Board's recommendation be corrected, removed or completely
expunged from Petitioner's record and that no such entries or
material be added to the record in the future.

g. That any material directed to be removed from Petitioner's
naval record be returned to the Board, together with a copy of this
Report of Proceedings, for retention in a confidential file
maintained for such purpose, with no cross reference being made a
part of 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.

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN ‘BRIAN ~\
Recorder Acting Recorder

5. The foregoing report of the Board is submitted for your review and

action.
W. DEAN PFEI

Executive Di

 
   

Reviewed and approved:

Manpower and Reserve Affaire)

13