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

						SMW
										Docket No: 3925-07
										18 December 2007

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

Subj REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD 

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

End:	(1) Case Summary
(2)	Subject s navel

1, Pursuant to the provisions, of reference (a) Petitjor1ei a former enlisted member of the United States Navy, applied to this Board requesting an upgrade of the under honorable characterization of service that he received on 20 October 1969.

2. The Board, consisting of Ms. Mr., and reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 12 December 2007, 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 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 24 June 1966, Petitioner enlisted in the Navy at age 20. At that time, he had completed 12 years of education of which he repeated one grade and attained a Mental Group V entrance test score, which is the lowest possible.

d.	On 16 March 1968, a service record entry was made, which stated that Petitioner was slow in learning the equipment and required supervision. On 16 September 1968, another service record entry was made, which stated that he kept his space up to standards, but needed routine supervision. On 16 March 1969,
another service record entry was made, which stated that he needed reminding of his personal appearance and showed no initiative. On 16 September 1969, another service record entry was made, which stated that he needed close supervision, was sloppy in uniform and a very poor shipmate.

e.	Based on the information currently contained in the record, it appears that Petitioner’s commanding officer subsequently initiated administrative separation by reason of convenience of the government due to Petitioner having no promotion potential to petty officer. In connection with this processing, Petitioner would have acknowledged the separation action and been given an opportunity to submit a statement. Apparently, the separation authority approved the discharge recommendation. On 15 October 1969, a service record entry was made, which stated that he was being transferred to the nearest separation activity for separation. At that time, his final overall trait and military behavior averages were 2.95 and 3.03, respectively. On 20 October 1969, five days later, the separation activity assigned a military behavior mark of 2.6, which lowered his final military behavior average to 2.95. Petitioner was separated on that same day under honorable conditions by reason of convenience of the government due to having no potential to be promoted to petty officer.

f.	In his application, Petitioner states that he was never given a copy of his performance evaluation marks nor had an opportunity to challenge the ratings.

g.	Regulations in effect at that time authorized assignment of evaluation marks upon discharge if 90 or more days of the current reporting period had elapsed. Regulations also determined characterization of service, in part, by overall trait and military behavior averages computed from marks assigned on a periodic basis. Averages of 2.7 in overall trait and 3.0 in military behavior were required for a fully honorable characterization of service.

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 discharge was processed according to regulations in effect at that time. However, the Board also finds that with the exception of the erroneous military behavior mark assigned by the separation activity, Petitioner’s final overall trait and military behavior mark averages met the requirements for a fully honorable characterization of service. The Board also notes that the Navy was well aware of Petitioner’s promotion potential to petty officer at the time of enlistment and found that he had no disciplinary infractions. Therefore, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s characterization of service should be changed to honorable.

RECOMMENDATION:

a.	That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that he was honorably discharged on 20 October 1969, vice the characterization of under honorable conditions actually issued on that date.

b.	That a copy of this Report of Proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record.

c.	That upon request, the Veterans Administration be informed that Petitioner’s application was received by the Board on 26 April 2007.

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