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

SMW
Docket No: 6909-07
	25 February 2008

From:	Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To:	Secretary of the Navy
	
	Subj:  NAVAL RECORD OF	_____
	
	Ref:	(a)	10	U.S.C.	1552

Encl:	(1) Case Summary
		(2) Subjects naval record

1.	Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of tbe Naval Reserve, applied to this Board requesting a general discharge vice the undesirable discharge (UD) that was issued on 19 April 1946.

2 The Board, consisting of Mr and Mr, reviewed Petitioners allegations of error and injustice on 21 February 2008, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the partial 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 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.	On 5 November 1942, Petitioner enlisted in the Naval
Reserve at age 17 with parental consent. On 19 October 1943 and 19 February 1944, he had a captain’s mast and was convicted
by a summary court-martial for two instances of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling about 36 days and missing the movement of his ship.

d.	On 10 June 1944, Petitioner was convicted by a general court-martial (GCM) of 130 days of UA. The court sentenced him to confinement, reduction in rank, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). Petitioner was subsequently placed on 12 months of probation after completion of confinement.

			  e.	On 30 October 1945, a medical survey board found Petitioner unfit for duty due to a psychologically disqualifying factor and recommended a convenience of the government discharge. The medical survey board advised Petitioner of its finding and recommendation, and he declined to submit a statement. On 20 November 1945, the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery concurred with the medical survey board’s recommendation. On 7 December 1945, the unexecuted portion of the GCM sentence was remitted. On that same date, the separation authority referenced the medical survey board’s report and directed a UD by reason of unfitness. On 19 April 1946, a discharge certificate was issued showing that he was separated with a UD by reason of unsuitability.

	f.	Petitioner states that the UD is inequitable and requests a general characterization of service.

	g.	Regulations in effect at that time authorized discharge of individuals by reason of convenience of the government due to unsuitability who were considered unsuitable because of psychiatric handicaps, personality disorders or defects, or other good and sufficient reason. Regulations further directed that a general characterization of service be given to individuals discharged by reason of convenience of the government due to unsuitability.

	h.	Regulations in effect at that time authorized a UD for individuals who are separated by reason of unfitness. Regulations also directed that individuals recommended for a UD by reason of unfitness be informed of the contemplated action, the reasons, and given an opportunity to appear and present any facts or submit a statement.

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 characterization of service was erroneously assigned. In this regard, the medical survey board recommended discharge due to a psychologically disqualifying factor, which was approved by the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery before the recommendation was forwarded to the separation authority. In addition, there is no evidence in the record to show that Petitioner was ever processed for administrative separation by reason of unfitness. The Board notes that Petitioner’s discharge certificate shows that he was discharged by reason of unsuitability. Therefore, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s discharge should be changed to a general characterization of service.

RECOMMENDATION:

a.	That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that he was separated with a general discharge on 19 April 1946, vice the UD actually assigned on that date.

b.	That a copy of this Report of Proceedings be filed in 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 J. GEORGE
Recorder	Acting 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 Regulation, 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.

	W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director