DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARDFOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSEROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 6204-20 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER , XXX-XX-, USN 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: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments (2) DD Form 214 (3) Memorandum, Subj: Request for Detachment for Cause ICO [Petitioner], 30 March 1981 (4) Report of the Fitness of Officer (l February l 981 to 30 March 1981) (5) Memorandum, Subj: Resignation; submission of, 21 September 1981 (6) Memorandum, Subj: [Petitioner], 27 November 1981 (7) Memorandum, Subj: Detachment for Cause, 2 February 1982 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a). Petitioner filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) requesting that the characterization of his service be upgraded from other than honorable (0 TH) to honorable, that the narrative reason for his separation be changed to reflect that he resigned from military service due to fulfillment of his service obligation, and that his current separation code of " DNB" be changed to one reflecting honorable service. 2. The Board reviewed Petitioner' s allegations of error and injustice pursuant to its regulations on 21 September 2020, and after careful and conscientious consideration of the facts of record determined that there was insufficie nt evidence of probable material error or injustice to warrant relief. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, relevant portions of Petitioner' s naval service record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 3. The Board, having re vie wed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice, finds as follows: a. Before applying to the Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulation within the Department of the Navy. b. It is in the interest of justice to review the application on its merits. c. Petitioner was appointed as an officer in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 7 August 1977. See enclosure (2). d. By memorandum dated 30 March 1981, the Commanding Officer (CO), , requested that Petitioner be detached for cause (DFC) from his duties as the Communications Security Material Systems (CMS) Custodian for the , following the findings of a Naval Security Inspection Team (NSIT) inspection. The NSIT found that receipts were not properly documented for a period of approximately five months; that destructions and destruction reports were not conducted or properly documented for a period of approximately five months; that the running inventory and local records were not maintained for a period of approximately five months; that approximately 300 items were not stored in areas that afforded proper physical security; that large quantities of material were either lost or unaccounted for; and that material was found that had been reported as destroyed. See enclosure (3). This request for DFC was subsequentlyapproved by the Chief of Naval Personnel (CNP) by memorandum dated 2 February 1982. See enclosure (7). e. Petitioner subsequently received a special fitness report for the period of 1 February 1981 to 30 March 1981 which stated "[Petitioner' s] failure to maintain the CMS account and his failure to report his problems to the command creates serious doubts about his ability to accept responsibility and maintain the integrity and reliability required of a commissioned officer." See enclosure (4). f. Petitioner was subsequently charged with seven specifications of dereliction of duty in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); three specifications of false official statement in violation of Article 107, UCMJ; one specification of negligently causing 248 CMS documents to be lost in violation of Article I08, UCMJ; and one specification of forgery in violation of Article 123, UCMJ. An investigationpursuant to Article 32, UCMJ, was initiated pursuant to these charges. See enclosures (1) and (6). g. Petitioner submitted two conditional requests for resignation for the good of the naval service. The first of these requests was conditioned upon his receiptof an honorable discharge, while the second was conditioned upon his receipt of no worse than a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. Both of these conditional resignation requests were denied. See enclosure (6). By memorandum dated 21 September 1981, Petitioner submitted an unconditional request for resignation for the good of the Naval Service, wherein he acknowledged that if his request was accepted he would receive an 0TH discharge. See enclosure (5). h. By memorandum dated 27 November 1981 , the CNP recommended that Petitioner's unqualified resignation for the good of the service be granted and that he be discharged under 0TH conditions. By signature dated 12 January 1982, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (ASN (M&RA)) approved the CNP's recommendation. See enclosure (6). i. Petitioner was discharged from the Navy on 25 February 1982 for " malfeasanceand/or nonfeasance in office," with a characterization of service as 0TH and a separation code of" DNB." See enclosure (2). j. In enclosure (1), Petitioner asserts that his discharge under 0TH conditions was exceedingly harsh based upon the overall quality of his service. He notes that he was awarded the Navy Expeditionary Medal and the Sea Service Award. He also asserts that the charges made against him were false, that he was coerced into submitting his resignation, and that the words in the resignation request accepting responsibility for his conduct were not his own. Petitioner states that he is plagued with health issues and mental anguish resulting from his unjust treatment. Petitioner also asks that the Board take into account his post-discharge achievements to include his Master's Degree, his exemplary employment record, and the evidence of his favorable character reflected in the letters submitted in support of his application. BOARD CONCLUSION: After careful and conscientio us consideration of the entire record, the Board found insufficient evidence to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. The Board believed that Petitioner' s contentions of injustice in the process by which he was discharged under 0TH conditions arose from his lack of understanding of the military justice system. The Board found no error in this process. Petitioner voluntarily resigned from the Navy to avoid the court-martial that may have followed his Article 32, UCMJ, investiga tion, and by doing so he waived his right to have his discharge reviewed by a Board of Inquiry. The Board was also not convinced by Petitioner' s assertion that he was coerced to submit his resignation and denied legal counsel. No evidence was provided to support these assertions, and the fact that he had previously submitted two conditional resignation requests, combined with the presumption of regularity that Petitioner did not overcome, suggested to the Board that these assertions were not true. Further, the Board found that the Article 32, UCMJ, investigation was likely never completed because Petitioner obviated its need by submitting his voluntary resignation for the good of the Naval Service, rather than for some nefarious reason suggested by Petitioner. Accordingly, the Board found no error or injustice in the process used to discharge Petitioner from the Navy under 0TH conditions. In addition to reviewing the circumstances of Petitioner's discharge for error or injustice, the Board also applied the guidance of reference (b) to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief under the totality of the circumstances. In this regard, the Board considered, among other factors, Petitioner' s assertion that he was charged with false and unfounded allegations of misconduct ; that he is suffering from mental anguish and serious health issues that he attributes to his treatment by the Navy; that he had generally favorable fitness reports throughout his career until the misconduct in question; that he had been frocked to the wear the grade and perform the duties of a Lieutenant while still serving in the grade of Lieutenant Junior Grade; that Petitionerwas designated as a Surface Warfare Officer; that Petitioner was awarded the Navy Expeditionary Medal and the Sea Service award; that Petitioner received a Master of Science degree in Industrial Engineering subsequent to his discharge; that Petitioner has achieved an impressive post-service employment record; that a significant period of time has passed since Petitioner was dischargedfrom the Navy; and the nume rous letters of support provided by Petitioner attesting to his good character, work ethic, integrity, and reliability. Even consideringthese potentially mitigating factors in light of the guidance provided by reference (b), however, the Board did not find that the totality of the circumstances warranted relief. Specifically, the Board noted that Petitioner received his OTH discharge pursuant to his own request made in order to avoid the potentially far more significant consequences of a court martial for his serious misconduct. As such, the Board found taht the mitigating circumstances did not outweigh the significant misconduct that resulted in Petitioner's discharge. Accordingly, the Board determined that no relief is warranted. BOARD RECOMMENDATION: Based upon its conclusions above, the Board recommends the following: That no corrective action be take on the Petitioner's naval record. That a copy of this report of proceedings be filed in the Petitioner's naval record. That, upon request, the Department of Veterans Affairs be informed that Petitioner's application was received by the Board on 4 September 2020. 4. It is certified that a quoram was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a ture and comlete record of the Board's proceedings in the above-entitled matter. 5. The foregoing action of the Board is submtted for your review and action. 12/14/2020 Executive Director PRINCIPAL DEPUTY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (M&RA> DECISION: ( Performing the Duties of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy ( M&RA )) BOARD RECOMMENDATION APPROVED (Relief denied)