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 that his other than honorable (OTH) discharge be upgraded to honorable and that he be awarded the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal (NAM). Enclosure (1) applies. 2. The Board consisting of reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 14 December 2020 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the partial 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 Petitioner’s application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and consider his application on its merits. c. Petitioner enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 27 November 1990. d. On 5 December 1991, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for five specifications of being absent from his unit. e. On 6 December 1991, Petitioner was counseled concerning his personal behavior that was below acceptable standards. He was warned that any further deficiencies in his performance or conduct could result in disciplinary action and processing for an administrative separation. f. On 20 February 1992, Petitioner received NJP for failing to obey an order or regulation and making false official statements. g. On 13 March 1992, Petitioner was convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) for breaking restriction. h. On 12 February 1993, Petitioner received NJP for failing to obey a lawful general order or regulation. i. On 11 May 1993, Petitioner was notified of administrative discharge action by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and a pattern of misconduct. After being afforded his procedural rights, he waived his right to request to have his case heard before an administrative discharge board. His commanding officer (CO) forwarded Petitioner’s case to the separation authority stating, in pertinent part, that Petitioner’s problems centered on his inability to apply himself professionally; he was disciplined for short periods of unauthorized absence and situations that should have been avoided but he did have some positive periods in his service; and that Petitioner talked a distraught shipmate who was in an armed confrontation with city police into surrendering himself. The CO further stated the impact from Petitioner’s minor offenses outweighed his contributions, and it was strongly recommended that Petitioner receive a general discharge. j. On 19 May 1993, the separation authority directed that Petitioner receive an OTH discharge due to a pattern of misconduct. k. On 5 June 1993, Petitioner received his fourth NJP for failing to obey a lawful order. l. On 7 June 1993, Petitioner was discharged from the Navy with an OTH characterization of service due to a pattern of misconduct. m. With his application, Petitioner contends that he signed a form that promised he would receive a general discharge and be awarded a NAM for saving his senior chief’s life after a shipmate threatened to kill him due to the harassment in his division. Petitioner also provided a copy of a newspaper article regarding the civil incident and a copy of what appears to be a rough draft of a NAM citation, character witness statements, and a copy of his CO’s comments and recommendation for a general discharge. Further, he states the only reason he signed the paperwork to leave before his enlistment ended was because his JAG attorney told him to waive his rights so his processing would not get held up, and that after a year, he could request to have his discharge upgraded. The Petitioner claims he was misled by his JAG attorney. CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants partial favorable action. In reaching its conclusion, the Board initially notes Petitioner’s youth and time in service. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, including his four NJPs for relatively minor disciplinary infractions and conviction by SCM, the Board concluded that even though the OTH discharge was proper, based on Petitioner's overall record of military service and his CO’s recommendation, the record should reflect a general characterization of service. In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following partial corrective action. RECOMMENDATION Petitioner be issued a new Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD 214) to show that on 7 June 1993, he received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. No further action be granted. A copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record. 4. It is certified that 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.