Docket No: 0559-20 
Ref: Signature Date 
 
From:  Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records 
To:    Secretary of the Navy 
 
Subj:   REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER MEMBER USN, XXX-XX- 
 
Ref:    (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552  
        (b) USECDEF 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 with attachments 
       (2) Case Summary 
 
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 naval record be corrected to reflect an honorable characterization of service, “secretarial authority” as the narrative reason for separation, and a RE-1 reentry code.   
 
2.  The Board consisting of reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 10 February 2021 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined the 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 Kurta Memo, the 3 September 2014 guidance from the Secretary of Defense regarding discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Hagel Memo), and 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 enclosure (1) 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 Navy on 29 August 1988.  On 9 February 1990, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for two instances of assault.  On 26 October 1990, Petitioner received a second NJP for wrongfully and falsely altering an identification card.  On 12 July 1991, he received a third NJP for being derelict in the performance of duty and larceny.   Subsequently, Petitioner was notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and pattern of misconduct.  After he waived his procedural rights, Petitioner’s commanding officer recommended administrative separation by reason of misconduct with an other than honorable (OTH) character of service.  The discharge authority concurred and directed Petitioner be discharged with an OTH character of service by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct.  Petitioner was discharged on 7 October 1991 and assigned a RE-4 (not recommended for reenlistment) reentry code.  At the time of discharge, his overall performance average was 3.4. 
 
 d.  Petitioner, after apologizing for his actions, contends he has had nearly three decades to consider how his actions have brought discredit upon himself and the Navy.  He further contends his post-service record, which consists of serving in the National Guard for five years, consistent employment, and dedication to parenting, warrants an upgrade to his character of service. Lastly, Petitioner contends he continues to be stigmatized and harmed by his OTH discharge.   
 
CONCLUSION: 
 
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes Petitioner’s request warrants partial relief.   
 
The Board, applying liberal consideration and the factors outlined in the Wilkie memo, concluded that, although it found insufficient evidence of an error or injustice, Petitioner’s request warranted clemency in the form of an upgraded characterization of service.  The Board noted Petitioner’s remorseful and repentant attitude, the length of time since his discharge, and his attempt to honor his commitment to serve his country by enlisting in the National Guard.  The Board further noted Petitioner’s overall performance average, despite three NJPs, was 3.4. Based on these factors, the Board concluded Petitioner’s discharge characterization should be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions.  However, the Board, applying liberal consideration, concluded “misconduct – pattern of misconduct” was an accurate and authorized description of Petitioner’s reason for separation and denied his request to change the narrative reason to “secretarial authority.” Further, the Board concluded Petitioner’s misconduct still warranted a RE-4 reentry code and denied his request to change his reentry code to “RE-1.”     
 
RECOMMENDATION: 
 
In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: 
 
Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 and new discharge certificate indicating the characterization of service as “general, under honorable conditions.”  
 
That a copy of this report of proceedings be filed in 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-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. 

 
2/24/2021
Executive Director