From:  Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records 
To:      Secretary of the Navy 
 
Subj:   REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF   
            
 
Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552   
 
Encl: (1) DD Form 149  
 
1.  Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board), requesting to upgrade to his current characterization of service, and adjustment of his grade to E-4.  Enclosures (1) through (3) apply. 
 
2.  The Board consisting of  reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 18 November 2020 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken.  Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Petitioner’s application together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of Petitioner’s naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, to include the 25 July 2018 guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness regarding equity, injustice or clemency determinations (Wilkie Memo).   
 
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 the enclosure was not filed in a timely manner, it is in the interest of justice to review the application on its merits.   
 
    c.  The Petitioner enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 23 January 1987.  Petitioner reenlisted on 22 October 1990.  Petitioner received non-judicial punishment (NJP) on 14 February 1991, for assault, two specifications of disorderly conduct, and failure to obey an order from a superior commissioned officer.  Subsequently, Petitioner was counseled regarding the NJP.  On 17 May 1991, Petitioner was convicted by a summary court-martial (SCM) for failure to obey a lawful order issued by an executive officer.  Petitioner was sentenced to confinement and reduction in rank.  On 18 June 1991, Petitioner was reduced in paygrade to E-1.  On 24 June 1991, Petitioner was notified of the initiation of administrative separation proceedings by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, at which point, he elected his right to counsel and a hearing before and administrative discharge board (ADB).  On 17 September 1991, an ADB convened and found that Petitioner had committed misconduct, and recommended the Petitioner’s discharge with a general characterization of service by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.  On 4 October 1991, Petitioner’s commanding officer (CO) forwarded his case to the Chief of Naval Personnel recommending approval of the recommendations of the ADB.  On 23 October 1991, the CO’s recommendation was approved, and on 31 October 1991, Petitioner was discharged with a general characterization of service by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.    
 
     d.  At the time of Petitioner’s discharge, he was issued a Certificate of Discharge or Release from Active Duty (DD Form 214).  Upon review of the Petitioner’s DD Form 214, administrative errors were discovered.  Block 18 erroneously reflects Petitioner’s continuous honorable active service as 20 January 1987 until 21 January 1990. 
 
CONCLUSION: 
 
The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in Petitioner’s case in accordance with the Wilkie Memo.  These included, but were not limited to Petitioner’s desire to upgrade his discharge.  Based upon this review, the Board concluded Petitioner’s potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief with respect to Petitioner’s request to upgrade to his current characterization of service, and adjustment of his grade to E-4.  Specifically, the Board determined that Petitioner’s repeated misconduct, which resulted in NJP, and a SCM conviction outweighed these mitigating factors.  In this regard, the Board noted Petitioner’s DD Form 214 correctly reflects his grade at the time of separation, therefore, change to his grade is not warranted.  
 
Notwithstanding the above, 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 Petitioner’s DD Form 214 incorrectly reflects Petitioner’s continuous honorable active service.  In this regard, Petitioner’s continuous honorable active service should reflect “20 January 1987 until 21 October 1990.” 
 
In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action. 
 
RECOMMENDATION: 
 
The Petitioner’s naval record be corrected following an audit and invalidation of the erroneous entries listed in Block 18 of the Petitioner’s DD Form 214.  
    
That Petitioner be issued a Correction to his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 215).    
  
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. 
 
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 the reference, has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.