4
Four months later, Capt. Sturges ordered Ms. Penland to appear before a Navy
administrative Board of Inquiry (BOI) to show cause why she should not be discharged.
4
Ms.
Penland alleges she was not permitted to introduce testimony from her civilian boyfriend at the
BOI hearing and the BOI was not “allowed to consider fundamental defects” in the court martial
when making its decision. Am. Compl. ¶ 26. The BOI found that Ms. Penland had committed
misconduct and substandard performance of duty, and recommended that she be separated from
Naval Service with the characterization of “General (Under Honorable Conditions).”
5
Def. Ex. 3
at 12. The BOI’s recommendation was accepted and approved on June 29, 2009 by the Acting
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs).
6
On July 29, 2009, Ms. Penland filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and a
motion for a preliminary injunction to challenge and forestall her imminent discharge. See
Penland v. Mabus, 643 F. Supp. 2d 14, 17 (D.D.C. 2009). The court denied her motions. See id.
4
Ms. Penland alleges that “[h]er command’s authority to order this hearing was discretionary.”
Pl. Opp. at 4.
5
The military recognizes three kinds of administrative discharges: Honorable, Under Honorable
Conditions (also termed General Discharge), and Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. 32
C.F.R. § 724.109(a). A discharge "Under Honorable Conditions" is “contingent upon military
behavior and performance of duty which is not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an Honorable
Discharge.” 32 C.F.R. § 724.109(a)(2). “There is a stigma associated with General and Other
Than Honorable discharges.” Vince v. Mabus, 956 F. Supp. 2d 83, 85 n.1 (D.D.C. 2013) (citing
Kauffman v. Sec’y of the Air Force, 415 F.2d 991, 995 (D.C. Cir. 1969); Martin v. Donley, 886
F. Supp. 2d 1, 10 (D.D.C. 2012)).
6
Ms. Penland alleges that “[f]or the past five years, [she] has sought administrative relief by
challenging her discharge through Navy and Department of Defense administrative channels,
including, most recently, an appeal to the Board for Correction of Naval Records. Once each of
those channels was exhausted, [she] had no other recourse than to file this action.” Am. Compl.
¶ 18. According to Penland v. Mabus, a prior case filed by Ms. Penland in this district, Ms.
Penland appealed her conviction to the General Courts-Martial Convening Authority (GMCA),
which declined to reverse the conviction. 643 F. Supp. 2d 14, 17 (D.D.C. 2009). The matter was
then referred to the Office of the Judge Advocate General of the Navy (JAG), which upheld the
conviction in February 2009. Id.
Case 1:13-cv-01465-RMC Document 17 Filed 01/30/15 Page 4 of 17