DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 2001-20 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (b) 10 U.S.C. § 654 (Repeal) (c) UNSECDEF Memo of 20 Sep 11 (Correction of Military Records Following Repeal of 10 U.S.C. § 654) Encl: (1) DD Form 149 (NR20200002001) 1. . Pursuant to reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed the enclosure with this Board requesting that his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) be corrected to reflect a “Hardship” discharge and upgrade his characterization of service. 2. The Board, consisting of , 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 his naval service 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 enclosure (1) 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 and started a period of active duty on 9 March 1983. On 23 December 1983, Petitioner received a Letter of Appreciation from his Commanding Officer for Petitioner’s efforts as a VIP driver during a Change of Command ceremony. d. In January 1984, administrative separation proceedings were initiated against Petitioner on the basis of homosexuality. Petitioner elected to appear before an administrative separation board. e. On 20 April 1984, an administrative discharge board considered the allegations of a fellow Sailor against Petitioner. The administrative discharge board determined by a vote of 2 to 1 that Petitioner engaged in homosexual conduct and recommended that he be discharged with an other than honorable characterization of service. The dissenting member articulated his disagreement with the majority decision in a written statement. The dissenting member opined that the government failed to establish the presence of homosexuality, noted that Petitioner’s two roommates testified that he showed no homosexual tendencies, and considered that Petitioner was well liked and respected in the work environment. The dissenting member recommended retention, or at worst, a general discharge. f. On 24 April 1984, Petitioner’s Commanding Officer recommended that Petitioner be discharged with an other than honorable characterization of service. The Commanding Officer stated that Petitioner admitted perpetration of homosexual acts against a nonconsenting participant. On 23 May 1984, Petitioner received his final evaluation; the evaluation stated that Petitioner was an excellent Aviation Storekeeper who demonstrated superb motivation, determination and a sincere willingness to become proficient and excel. The evaluation also rated him with a 1.0 for personal behavior; Petitioner submitted a rebuttal to the 1.0 marking. g. Reference (c) sets forth the Department of the Defense’s current policies, standards, and procedures for correction of military records following the DADT repeal of 10 U.S.C. § 654. It provides service Discharge Review Boards with guidance to grant requests to change the characterization of service to “honorable,” narrative reason for discharge to “secretarial authority,” SPD code to “JFF,” and reenlistment code to “RE-1J,” when the original discharge was based solely on DADT or a similar policy in place prior to enactment of it and there are no aggravating factors in the record, such as misconduct. h. The Board considered Petitioner’s request for a change to his discharge to reflect a separation due to hardship. The Board reviewed the available records pertaining to the allegations against Petitioner. The Board determined that a fellow Aviation Storekeeper alleged that Petitioner engaged in unwanted conduct toward him and that two of the three administrative separation board members found that Petitioner engaged in homosexual behavior. The Board found that although a change to a hardship discharge is not warranted, since Petitioner’s administrative separation proceedings were initiated on the basis of alleged homosexual conduct, Petitioner is entitled to a review of his record under the guidance of reference (c). i. The Board weighed the comments of the dissenting administrative separation board member, the available statements about the circumstances of Petitioner’s alleged homosexual conduct, and Petitioner’s professional performance while in the Navy. The Board determined that there is insufficient evidence in the record to establish that Petitioner’s conduct and behavior was associated with any aggravating factors and found that applying reference (c) to Petitioner’s request is appropriate given that he appears to have been separated due to allegations of homosexual conduct. The Board noted that in light of reference (c), Petitioner is entitled to an upgrade to his discharge characterization, a change to his narrative separation reason to reflect “Secretarial Authority,” a change to his SPD code, and a change to his reenlistment code. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of references (b) and (c), the Board concluded that Petitioner’s request warrants partial corrective action to include an upgrade to his service characterization to reflect an honorable discharge. The Board noted Petitioner’s overall record of military service and current Department of the Defense policy as established in references (b) and (c), and found that Petitioner’s Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) should be changed to reflect an honorable characterization of service, a narrative reason of “Secretarial Authority,” a separation authority of “MILPERSMAN 1910-164, an SPD code of “JFF,” and a reenlistment code of RE-1J. RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that on 23 May 1984, Petitioner was issued an honorable discharge by reason of “Secretarial Authority,” that his SPD code is “JFF,” his separation authority is “MILPERSMAN 1910-164,” and his RE code is RE-1J. That Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214. That a copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record. That, upon request, the Department of Veterans Affairs be informed that Petitioner’s application was received by the Board on 24 February 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 Regulations, 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.