DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 6399-20 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) Title 10, United States Code, Section 15 5 2 (b) USO Memo, "Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations," of 25 July 18 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachrnents (2) Nonjudicial Punishment of 18 Jun 87 (3) NAVPERS 1070/613, Administrative Remarks, of 18 Jun 87 (4) NAVPERS 1070/407, Court Memorandum, of 18 Nov 87 (5) Naval Training Station Memo, subj: Notice of Administrative Board Procedure Proposed Action, dtd 7 Jan 88 (6) [Petitioner] Memo, subj: Statement of Awareness and Request For, or Waiver of Privileges, dtd 7 Jan 88 (7) Naval Training Station Memo, subj: Notice of Administrative Board Procedure Proposed Action, dtd 23 Feb 88 (8) [Petitioner] Memo, subj: Statement of Awareness and Request For, or Waiver of Privileges, dtd 24 Feb 88 (9) BUPERS Memo, subj: [Petitioner], dtd 22 Mar 88 (10) ASN (M&RA) Memo, subj: [Petitioner], dtd 24 Mar 88 (11) DD Form 214 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 (0TH) characterization of service be upgraded. 2. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 11 December 2020. 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 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 enclosure (1) was not filed in a timely manner, it is in the interest of justice to review Petitioner's application on its merits. c. Petitioner enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 14 August 1986. See enclosure (12). d. On 18 June 1987, Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for one specification of unauthorized absence (UA) in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and two specifications of failure to follow a lawful order by consuming alcohol in a Bachelor Enlisted Quarters room in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. See enclosure (2). On that day, he was counseled regarding his misconduct and warned that further deficiencies may result in disciplinary action and processing for administrative separation. See enclosure (3). e. On 18 November 1987, Petitioner was convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM) of one specification of larceny in violation of Article 121, UCMJ, and one specification of conspiracy to commit larceny in violation of Article 81, UCMJ. His sentence included three months of confinement, a fine of $438, forfeiture of pay, reduction to E-1, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). On 28 December 1987, the convening authority approved the findings and sentence as adjudged (except for the fine), but suspended all confinement in excess of 35 days. See enclosure (4). f. By memorandum dated 7 January 1988, Petitioner was notified that he was being considered for an administrative discharge ''by reason of his [SPCM] conviction as evidenced by commission of a serious offense and [SPCM]." 1 See enclosure (5). Petitioner waived his right to consult with counsel and to an administrative separation board. See enclosure (6). g. By memorandum dated 23 February 1988, Petitioner was re-notified that he was being considered for an administrative discharge, this time "by reason of misconduct as evidenced by misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidence by [his] service record and SPCM]." See enclosure (7). Petitioner again waived his right to consult with counsel and to an administrative separation board. See enclosures (8). h. On 22 March 1988, the Chief of Naval Personnel recommended to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (ASN (M&RA)) that Petitioner be administratively separated under 0TH conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. This memorandum suggests that Petitioner's SPCM conviction for larceny involved the theft of motorcycle parts of a value of approximately $1500. See enclosure (9). i. By memorandum dated 24 March 1988, the ASN (M&RA) directed that the Petitioner be separated under 0TH conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. See enclosure (10). 1 It is unclear from Petitioner's service record why Petitioner was processed for administrative separation rather than discharged pursuant to his approved BCD. j. On 7 April 1988, Petitioner was discharged under 0TH conditions for commission of a serious offense. See enclosure (11). CONCLUSION: After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found insufficient evidence to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. In accordance with reference (b), the Board considered all potentially mitigating factors to determine whether relief is warranted in Petitioner's case in the interests of justice. These included, but were not limited to, Petitioner's contrition and regrets regarding his conduct while in the Navy; Petitioner's contention that the "black mark" on his record has always bothered him and that he has grown since the events that resulted in his discharge; Petitioner's contention that he has been a productive member of society by having a job, supporting his children, and being a good father, worker, and patriot; the character reference provided in support of Petitioner's application; Petitioner's relative youth and immaturity at the time of his misconduct; and the passage of time since Petitioner's discharge. Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief. Specifically, the Board determined that the severity of Petitioner's misconduct, as evidenced by his NJP and SPCM, outweighed these mitigating factors. Accordingly, the Board determined that relief is not warranted under the totality of the circumstances. RECOMMENDATION: In light of the above, the Board recommends that Petitioner's application be denied. 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. Executive Director ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (M&RA) DECISION: Petitioner's Request Approved (Grant relief) Actinq ASN(M&RA)