Docket No: 2504-20 
Ref:   Signature Date 
 
From:  Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records 
To:    Secretary of the Navy 
 
Subj:  REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER    USMC 
 
Ref:   (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552  
 
Encl:  (1) DD Form 149 (NR20200002504) 
 
1.  Petitioner filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board), requesting correction to his record to reflect an upgrade to his discharge characterization. 
 
2.  The Board, consisting of    , reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 26 October 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 his naval service records, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 
 
3.  The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to the allegations of error and injustice, finds as follows: 
 
    a.  Before applying to this Board, all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy were exhausted. 
 
    b.  Although Petitioner’s application was not filed in a timely manner, it is in the interest of justice to review the application on its merits.   
 
    c.  Petitioner enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 28 September 1967.  Petitioner began a period of unauthorized absence (UA) on 11 April 1968; his period of UA was terminated on 21 January 1970.  
 
    d.  On 19 February 1970, Petitioner requested an undesirable discharge for the good of the service to escape trial by court martial.  Petitioner’s request was approved and he was discharged on 20 March 1970, with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service. 
 
    e.  Following his discharge, he petitioned the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) for an upgrade.  On 19 June 1972, Petitioner was notified that no change was warranted.   
 
    f.  On 29 June 1977, Petitioner was given an Executive Grant of Conditional Clemency. 
 
    g.  On 10 August 1979, Petitioner again sought relief from NDRB.  In his application to NDRB, Petitioner stated that he went into a UA status because his mother and father separated, his mother became hospitalized, and he became the sole support of the family of 10 children.  When his mother had sufficiently recovered, Petitioner surrendered from the UA.  NDRB considered his request, but again determined that the discharge was proper as issued and no change is warranted. 
 
    h.  In his application to the Board, Petitioner states that he joined the Marine Corps at age 18 during the Vietnam War.  Petitioner’s older brother was also serving in the Marine Corps.  While Petitioner was serving, Petitioner requested and was denied emergency leave to care for his younger siblings.  Petitioner states that he did not want his younger siblings to go into foster care, so he embarked on a period of UA.  During his UA, Petitioner states that he worked as a houseman at a hotel to pay the rent and support his brothers and sisters.  After his return to military control, Petitioner states he offered to be deployed to Vietnam and requested a court-martial.  Petitioner states that he was told by his Company Commander that he should accept an OTH and later obtain an upgrade to general.   
   
CONCLUSION: 
 
The Board considered Petitioner’s request and weighed the personal factors surrounding Petitioner’s period of UA.  The Board noted that Petitioner was the second oldest in his family, that his older brother was serving in the Marine Corps, and that Petitioner went into a UA status to take responsibility for the support and care of his family of 10 children.  The Board noted Petitioner’s offer to serve in Vietnam after his return to military control.  Taking into consideration the mitigating factors that led to Petitioner’s UA, his offer to deploy to Vietnam after his return to military control, the passage of time since his discharge, and Petitioner’s ongoing efforts post-discharge to obtain an upgrade to his administrative discharge, the Board found that clemency is warranted.  The Board determined that Petitioner is entitled to an upgrade to his characterization of service from OTH to general, and that no further corrective action should be taken.    
 
RECOMMENDATION: 
 
In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: 
 
That Petitioner be issued a new Certificate of Release of Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) showing that he was discharged from the Marine Corps on 20 March 1970, with a general characterization of service. 
 
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 13 March 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 the reference, has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.