Docket No: 1174-20
Ref:   Signature Date

From:  Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records 
To:    Secretary of the Navy 
 
Subj:  REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF  ,             USMC 
 
Ref:   (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 
 
Encl:  (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments 
 
 1.  Pursuant to the provisions of references (a) and (b), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting a change to his name, and characterization of service.  Enclosures (1).  
 
 2.  The Board, consisting of  , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 13 November 2020 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, relevant portions of Petitioner’s naval service record, as well as 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.  Enclosure (1) was filed in a timely manner. 
 
    c.  Petitioner enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 22 July 1985.  On 27 April 1989, Petitioner reenlisted in the Marine Corps.  On 14 August 1989, Petitioner completed a statement of understanding regarding his assignment to physical fitness and military appearance/weight control program.  On 15 September 1989, Petitioner was counseled regarding his failure to meet Marine Corps physical appearance standards.  On 17 January 1990, Petitioner was counseled regarding his tardiness.  On 31 May 1990, Petitioner received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for disrespect in language to an NCO.  From the period beginning on 31 May 1990 to 15 July 1991 Petitioner was counseled on three occasions for misconduct and failure to maintain proper military appearance.  On 11 December 1991, a Marine Corps Criminal Investigative Division (CID) was initiated regarding the Petitioner’s relationship with two women that were not his wife.  Petitioner was notified of the initiation of administrative separation proceedings by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense.  On 24 February 1992, Petitioner elected counsel and a hearing by an administrative discharge board (ADB).  On 23 March 1992, Petitioner submitted a request for conditional waiver of a hearing before an ADB contingent on his separation from the Marine Corps by reason of unsatisfactory performance due to failure to conform to weight standards with a general characterization of service.  On 24 March 1992, the Petitioner’s request for waiver was denied.  As a result of the foregoing, an ADB convened and recommended the Petitioner’s discharge with a general characterization of service by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense.  On 21 April 1992, the discharge authority approved and directed Petitioner’s discharge by reason of unsatisfactory performance due to failure to conform to weight standards with a general characterization of service.  On 24 April 1992, Petitioner was discharged.  Petitioner was issued a Report of Separation from Active Duty (DD Form 214) based on the name used while serving, specifically,          .” 
 
     d.  Petitioner requests his DD Form 214 be amended by changing his name from “ ” to ,” his characterization of service upgraded.  Petitioner contends his failure to maintain weight is no way reflects his performance as a Marine.  Petitioner provides a copy of his birth certificate, social security card, and driver’s license, which reflect the name     .” 
 
CONCLUSION: 
 
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants partial favorable action.  The Board notes the aggravating factor of misconduct and failure to maintain Marine Corps weight standards in the Petitioner’s naval record, therefore, an upgrade to his characterization of service is not warranted.  Notwithstanding, the Board notes the Petitioner provides sufficient legal evidence of the Petitioner’s legal name and concludes that the DD Form 214 should be changed to reflect the Petitioner’s legal name.   
 
In view of the above, the Board directed the following corrective action: 
 
RECOMMENDATION: 
 
That Petitioner’s naval record, specifically, Block 1 of the DD Form 214, be corrected to reflect the name ”       instead of .” 
 
That Petitioner be issued a Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 215).    
 
That no further changes be made to the record. 
 
That a copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record, along with the previously issued DD Form 214 and the corrected DD Form 214, which reflects Petitioner’s name change. 
 
That upon request, the Department of Veterans Affairs be informed that Petitioner’s application was received on 27 January 2020. 
 
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. 
 
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.