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 (b) USD Memo, “Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations,” 25 July 2018 Encl: DD Form 149 w/attachment 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed the enclosure with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board), requesting that her DD Form 214 be corrected by upgrading the characterization of her service from other than honorable (OTH) to honorable. 2. The Board reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 9 September 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 enclosure, relevant portions of Petitioner’s 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 regulation 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. Petitioner enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 19 November 1985. d. On 13 September 1988, Petitioner was formally counseled (“Page 11”) for writing checks against her checking account while knowing that she had insufficient funds to cover said checks. Petitioner was warned that any further writing of checks against with insufficient funds could result in non-judicial punishment (NJP). e. On 1 December 1988, Petitioner received NJP for knowingly writing two checks for a combined total of $190.00, without sufficient funds in her account to cover said checks, in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and for violating orders by being in the company of two male Marines in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. She was sentenced to reduction in grade (from E-4 to E-3) and a suspended forfeiture of pay. f. On 7 December 1988, Petitioner received her second Page 11 counseling for writing bad checks and failure to pay just debts. She was informed that any further reoccurrences could result in NJP or administrative separation proceedings. The suspension of her forfeiture of pay from the 1 December 2018 NJP was also vacated on this date. g. On 14 December 1988, Petitioner received her third Page 11 counseling for financial irresponsibility for writing bad checks. h. On 27 January 1989, Petitioner received NJP for, among other charges, writing a bad check on 14 January 1989 in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. She was reduced in grade to E-2. i. On 14 February 1989, Petitioner received NJP for writing four bad checks between 19 January 1989 and 23 January 1989 in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. She was sentenced to restriction for 90 days. j. On 21 February 1989, Petitioner acknowledged receipt of notification of separation proceedings due to minor disciplinary infractions and a pattern of misconduct related to the above referenced NJPs and counseling statements. After consulting with military counsel, she waived her right to a hearing before an administrative discharge board. k. Although Petitioner’s commanding officer had recommended that she be separated with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, on 3 April 1989 the separation authority approved her separation under other than honorable (OTH) conditions. Petitioner was discharged from the Marine Corps on 14 April 1989 under OTH conditions. l. In the enclosure, Petitioner contends that while stationed in , , she felt compelled to return home to to help her mother escape an abusive spouse. She acknowledged that she “had a few checks that were placed out there,” but asserts that she committed her acts of misconduct to be with her mother. 1 Petitioner also asserts that she had not been in trouble since leaving the Marine Corps, that she returned to college and graduated, and that she has become a nurse. 1 Despite the assertions made by Petitioner in the enclosure, her records do not reflect any unauthorized absences. Her administrative separation was due solely to her pattern of writing bad checks. MAJORITY CONCLUSION: The majority of the Board found no error or injustice in the original decision to separate Petitioner under OTH conditions. In addition to considering her application for error or injustice, the majority of the Board also considered it in light of the guidance provided by reference (b) to determine whether equitable relief is appropriate in her case. After carefully weighing all potentially mitigating factors, including but not limited to the passage of time, Petitioner’s relatively young age at the time of her misconduct, the difficult family circumstances that she was dealing with at the time of her misconduct, the fact that her commanding officer had recommended that she receive a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service, and her post-service employment, education, and conduct record, the majority determined that the circumstances of Petitioner’s case warrants equitable relief. Accordingly, the majority of the Board determined that the characterization of Petitioner’s service should be upgrade to general (under honorable conditions). The majority of the Board was not, however, willing to recommend that Petitioner’s characterization of service be upgraded to honorable as requested, simply because it found that her in-service misconduct was too substantial to warrant such relief. MAJORITY RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the majority of the Board recommends the following corrective action: That Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 reflecting that Petitioner was discharged on 14 April 1989 with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. That no further changes be made to the record. 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 31 March 2020. MINORITY CONCLUSION: The minority of the Board also found no error or injustice in the original decision to separate Petitioner under OTH conditions. Unlike the majority, however, the minority determined that there was insufficient evidence of Petitioner’s post service achievements or character in the record to justify the equitable relief recommended by the majority. Accordingly, even considered in light of the guidance provided by reference (b), the minority discerned no probable material error or injustice in Petitioner’s characterization of service, and recommended no change to Petitioner’s record. MINORITY RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the minority of the Board recommends that no corrective action be taken. 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. The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review and action. 11/17/2020 Assistant General Counsel (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) Reviewed, Majority Recommendation Approved (Partial Relief) or Reviewed, Minority Recommendation Approved (Deny Relief) Microsoft Office Signature Line...