Docket No: 4817-20 Ref: Signature date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER MEMBER . , USMC, XXX-XX- 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,” of 25 July 2018 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 (2) DD Form 214 (3) NAVMC 118(12), Offenses and Punishments (4) NAVMC 118(13), Record of Conviction by Court-Martial (5) , CO Memo, subj: Notification of Separation Proceedings, 19 Jun 89 (6) Petitioner’s Memo, subj: Acknowledgment of Separation Proceedings and my Rights to be Exercised or Waived, 19 Jun 89 (7) NAVMC 118(12), Offenses and Punishments (8) CO Memo, subj: Separation Proceedings of [Petitioner], 11 Jul 89 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 characterization of service be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions), and that the narrative reason for his separation be changed. 2. The Board reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error or injustice on 7 April 2021 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, relevant portions of Petitioner’s naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, to include reference (b). 3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner’s allegations of error or 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 interests of justice to review Petitioner’s application on its merits. c. Petitioner enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 4 August 1987. See enclosure (2). d. On 30 June 1988, Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for unlawfully using amphetamines/methamphetamines in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). See enclosure (3). e. On 30 August 1988, Petitioner was convicted by a special court martial (SPCM) of an unauthorized absence of three days in violation of Article 86, UCMJ, and resisting apprehension in violation of Article 95, UCMJ.1 His adjudged sentence included 30 days of confinement. See enclosure (4). 1 The SPCM acquitted Petitioner of charges of assaulting a noncommissioned officer in violation of Article 91, UCMJ; and breaking restriction and unlawfully entering the 21 Area Enlisted Club by jumping over a fence in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. f. On 9 June 1989, Petitioner received a second NJP for unlawfully using cocaine in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ. See enclosure (3). g. By memorandum dated 19 June 1989, Petitioner was notified that he was being recommended for administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and drug abuse. Specifically, the basis for the recommendation was Petitioner’s misconduct due to drug abuse and frequent misconduct as documented by negative counseling statements, two NJPs, and Petitioner’s SPCM conviction. See enclosure (5). h. By memorandum dated 19 June 1989, Petitioner waived his right to counsel and to request a hearing before an administrative discharge board. See enclosure (6). i. On 31 July 1989, Petitioner received his third NJP for breaking restriction in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. See enclosure (7). j. By memorandum dated 11 July 1989, the separation authority directed that Petitioner be discharged under other than honorable (OTH) conditions for misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and drug abuse. See enclosure (8). k. On 1 August 1989, Petitioner was discharged from the Marine Corps under OTH conditions for misconduct due to drug abuse. See enclosure (2). l. Petitioner requests relief based upon his post-service record of rehabilitation and service to others, especially homeless Veterans. He asserts that he entered the Marine Corps with a waiver after disclosing his previous drug use. Upon reporting to his first duty assignment, he became addicted to alcohol and his self-esteem was low due to the trajectory that his life had taken due to his previous drug use. He asserts that at one point during his service a medical officer recommended that Petitioner receive non-resident treatment and hospitalization for cocaine and alcohol dependence, but there is no evidence that he was ever treated. After his discharge from the Marine Corps, his addictions continued to adversely affect his life until he eventually sought treatment and enrolled in a long-term rehabilitation program. He claims to have been sober and drug free ever since. Based upon his own rehabilitation experience, Petitioner found a calling by helping others overcome their additions. He was hired as a house manager for the treatment program after graduating from the program and was later promoted to Facility Director. He remained in this position from 1997 to 2000, when he departed to begin work as a case manager with the , assisting homeless individuals in . In 2003, Petitioner was presented with an opportunity to oversee a program administered by . , a nonprofit homeless service agency that offers housing, employment and counseling services to thousands of veterans. He has remained with this organization ever since, and earned a Master of Social Work degree in 2013. As a result of his performance and efforts, Petitioner has been promoted to vice president of .. and is now its Chief Operating Officer, which has given him national oversight over programs, policies and procedures, and supervisor responsibility for 11 executive directors and two national vice presidents. MAJORITY CONCLUSION: Upon careful review and consideration of all of the evidence of record, the Majority of the Board determined that Petitioner’s post-service record of rehabilitation and service warrants relief in the interests of justice. The Majority found no error or injustice in Petitioner’s discharge under OTH conditions from the Marine Corps; this discharge was warranted by Petitioner’s record of misconduct at the time. Despite finding no error or injustice in Petitioner’s discharge at the time, the Majority considered the totality of the circumstances to determine whether relief is warranted in the interests of justice today in accordance with reference (b). In this regard, the Board considered, among other factors, Petitioner’s very impressive and meritorious post-service record of service to Veterans and his community, culminating in his current position as the Chief Operating Officer of a non-profit national Veteran’s service organization; the numerous character references provided by Petitioner attesting to his character, work ethic, and positive contributions in the community; Petitioner’s sincere remorse and humble acceptance of responsibility for the conduct that resulted in his discharge from the Marine Corps; that Petitioner sought out and successfully completed rehabilitation treatment to overcome his drug and alcohol addictions; Petitioner’s contention that he was recommended for but never received rehabilitation treatment while in the Marine Corps; that Petitioner was granted a waiver to enter the Marine Corps despite his known history of drug abuse; Petitioner’s relative youth and immaturity at the time of his misconduct; and the passage of time since Petitioner’s discharge. Although it did not find Petitioner’s post-service record to excuse the conduct for which Petitioner was discharge, the Majority did find that these mitigating circumstances, particularly Petitioner’s record of service to our Veterans, were worthy of relief in the interests of justice. MAJORITY RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Majority of the Board recommends that the following corrective action be taken on Petitioner’s naval record: That Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 reflecting that his service was characterized as “General (under honorable conditions)”; that the narrative reason for his separation was “Secretarial Authority”; that his separation authority was “MARCORSEPMAN 6421”; that his separation code was “JFF1”; and that his reenlistment code was “RE-1.” That no further corrective action should be taken. That a copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record. MINORITY CONCLUSION: Upon careful review and consideration of all of the evidence of record, the Minority of the Board found insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant relief. The Minority also considered the totality of the circumstances to determine whether relief is warranted in the interests of justice in accordance with reference (b). While the Minority acknowledged Petitioner’s impressive post-service record of rehabilitation and service, it did not believe that these factors outweighed the serious nature and frequency of Petitioner’s in-service misconduct. Accordingly, the Minority determined that relief was not warranted given the totality of the circumstances. MINORITY RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Minority of the Board recommends that no corrective action be taken on 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 titled matter. 5. The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review and action. 5/10/2021 Executive Director ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL (MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS) DECISION: MAJORITY Recommendation Approved (Full Relief) 6/15/2021 Assistant General Counsel (M&RA)