DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
               BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
						2 NAVY ANNEX
						   WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 

										    TRG
Docket No: 5104-03
28 July 2004

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

Subj:

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

End:	(1) Case Summary
(2) Subject’s naval record

1.	Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, the widow of a former enlisted member in the Navy, filed an application with this Board requesting an upgrade of her late husband’ s discharge.

2. The Board, consisting of Mr.	Mr. nd Mr. reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and
injustice on 20 July 2004 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, 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 ai7l administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy.

b.	Although it appears that Petitioner’s application was not filed in a timely manner, it is in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and review the application on its merits.

c.	Subject enlisted in the Navy on 23 April 1965 at age 21. At that time he had completed eight years of education and attained a GCT score of 35, which placed him in Mental Group IV.

d.	After Subject completed initial training, he then served in a satisfactory manner for about 16 months. On 12 August 1966 he reported to the USS LITTLE ROCK (CLG 4,) his second duty station. On 25 September 1966 he was apprehended by civil authorities in Norfolk, VA. The next day, he was convicted in municipal court of two counts of assault and destruction of private property. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail on each count of assault and a suspended $500 fine if he made restitution for the property damage. The time from the date of his arrest on 25 September 1966 until his discharge was considered lost time. On 17 October 1966 he missed ship’s movement because of his confinement.

e.	On 19 October 1966 Subject was notified of separation processing due to conviction by civil authorities. In connection with this processing, he elected to waive the right to have his case heard by an administrative discharge board. After review, the discharge authority directed an undesirable discharge by reason of misconduct. He was so discharged on 6 December 1966.

f.	Submitted with Petitioner’S application is a partial copy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and a newspaper article that discusses the racial problems in Virginia in the 1950’s, which included resistance to the integration of public schools. She contends that her late husband was arrested after a racial incident. In this regard, Subject prepared a statement before his death stating that he was attacked by four white men and was charged with assault and destruction of property after he defended himself. It is also contended that he did not receive adequate help for his problem from the Navy. There are no details in the service record concerning the offenses which resulted in his discharge.

g.	The Board obtained a report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). That report shows that Subject has no record of convictions on file with that agency.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants favorable action. Subject served without incident for about 17 months prior to his arrest by civil authorities. Further, although no details are available, it is certainly possible that racial discrimination was a factor in the incident that resulted in his arrest and conviction. Since the FBI has reported that Petitioner has no convictions, it appears that he was a good citizen for many years. Given the circumstances, the Board concludes that no useful purpose is now served by the undesirable discharge and any doubt as to the nature of his offenses should now be resolved in his favor. Therefore, recharacterization to a general discharge is warranted as a matter of clemency.

RECOMMENDAT ION:

  a.	That Subject’s naval record be corrected to show that on 6 December 1966 he was issued a general discharge by reason of misconduct vice the undesirable discharge now of record.

b.	That this Report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record.

c.	That the Department of Veterans Affairs be informed upon request that Petitioner’s application was received by the Board on 17 June 2003.

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.

Recorder

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.