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

CRS
Docket No: 6278-05
3 January 2007

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

Subj:	REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF 

Ref:	(a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552
(b)	DoD Dir 1332.14 of 28 Jun 82
(c)	SECNAVINST 1910.4 of 29 -Sep 82

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

1.	Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, applied to this Board requesting that his naval record be corrected to show a more favorable type of discharge than the general discharge issued on 22 September 1983.

2.	The Board, consisting of Mr. Mr. reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 6 December 2006 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 all 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.	Petitioner enlisted in the Navy for four years on 26 September 1979.

d.	Petitioner’s record reflects that he received four nonjudicial punishments. The offenses included an unspecified instance of conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline, willful disobedience of a lawful order, disrespect, communicating a threat, and use of marijuana on two occasions. On 22 September 1983, three days prior to the expiration of his enlistment, he was separated under honorable conditions and transferred to the Navy Reserve. On 19 August 1985 he received a general discharge upon completion of his military obligation.

e.	In accordance with references (b) and (c) when an individual is separated due to expiration of enlistment, character of service is based on one’s conduct and overall trait averages, both of which are computed from marks assigned during periodic evaluations. Petitioner’s conduct and overall traits averages were 3.20 and 3.15, respectively. The minimum average marks required for a fully honorable characterization of service at the time of Petitioner’s separation were 3.0 in conduct and 2.8 in overall traits.

MAJORITY CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, a majority of the Board, consisting of Mr. Hicks and Ms. Wilcher, concludes Petitioner’s request warrants favorable action. In this regard, the majority notes that Petitioner’s conduct and overall traits averages were high enough for a fully honorable characterization of service and since he was separated within 90 days of the expiration of his enlistment, the applicable directive mandates such a characterization. Further, it has been the Board’s policy to upgrade such a discharge to honorable if an individual’s marks warrant such action. Therefore, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s discharge should be upgraded to honorable.

MAJORITY RECOMMENDATION:

a. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that he was issued an honorable separation on 22 September 1983 vice the under honorable conditions issued on that date.

b. That Petitioner’s naval record be further corrected to show that he was issued an honorable discharge by reason of expiration of term of service on 19 August 1985 vice the general discharge issued on that date.

c. That this Report of Proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record.

d. That, upon request, the Veterans Administration be informed that Petitioner’s application was received by the Board on 28 July 2005.

MINORITY CONCLUSION:

A minority of the Board, consisting of Mr. Geisler, disagrees with the majority recommendation to upgrade Petitioner’s discharge to honorable. He believes that regardless of the assigned marks, four nonjudicial punishments, two of which were for drug use, do not meet the standards for an honorable discharge. In this regard, the minority believes marks are only one factor in an individual’s overall service, and one must also look at the disciplinary record. Accordingly, the minority member concludes that Petitioner’s request for an honorable discharge should be denied.

MINORITY RECOMMENDATION:

That no relief be granted.

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	ALAN E. GOLDSMITH
	Recorder	Acting Recorder

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

W. DEAN PFEIFFER

MAJORITY REPORT:
Reviewed and approved:

MINORITY REPORT:
Reviewed and approved:

3