Docket No 3585-21 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 (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 her other than honorable (OTH) character of service be upgraded. 2. The Board, consisting of and reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 16 June 2021 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that 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 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 Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 26 August 2002. On 10 November 2004, Petitioner was convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of an unauthorized absence from 17 November 2003 to 24 September 2004. As punishment, Petitioner was awarded confinement and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). After the BCD was approved at all levels of review, Petitioner was discharged on 22 September 2006. d. Petitioner contends that her superior officers would speak about woman in the most disrespectful way and it made her feel very uncomfortable. Petitioner further contends that: 1) As a female she was always viewed as a potential sexual partner and never as a team member, the male marines of all ages and rank would make unwanted advances toward her: 2) Petitioner states that she was initially denied leave several times after receiving multiple Red Cross messages concerning her mother’s health. Petitioner was subsequently granted leave and states that while she was home on leave, she had feelings of depression, guilt, loneliness, and lack of sleep; these feelings were not allowing her to focus on her mother 100%. She further states she was very disappointed with the Marine Corps overall. She did not think of it as just being her unit, she felt as if this is how her military career would be and she was very afraid. She made a decision to stay alongside her mother and not go back to her unit. 3) After returning and receiving her court-martial, as a routine process of checking out before being sent back home she states she was harassed yet again and she still could not trust in sharing this information. She made a huge mistake by not returning, but her discharge is a direct result of the sexual harassment that caused her to lose faith in the Marine Corps and not have trust in anyone so she could not return. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that given the totality of his circumstances, Petitioner’s request merits relief. Additionally, the Board reviewed Petitioner’s application under the guidance provided in reference (b). Specifically, the Board considered whether his application was the type that was intended to be covered by this policy. The Board noted Petitioner’s misconduct and does not condone her actions, which subsequently resulted in a conviction by SPCM which resulted in a BCD. However, in light of reference (b), after reviewing the record holistically, and given the totality of the circumstances and purely as a matter of clemency, the Board concluded Petitioner’s discharge characterization should be changed to “general (under honorable conditions).” Additionally, in the interest of justice and in light of the potential for future negative implications, the Board further determined Petitioner’s narrative reason for separation be changed to “secretarial authority,” SPD code changed to “JFF,” and separation authority changed to “MARCORSEPMAN 6207.2.” RECOMMENDATION: In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following corrective action: That Petitioner be issued a new Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) indicating that on 22 September 2006, Petitioner was discharged with a “general (under honorable conditions) character of service, narrative reason for separation was “secretarial authority,” SPD code changed to “JFF,” and separation authority changed to “MARCORSEPMAN 6207.2.” That no further changes be made to Petitioner’s record. 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. 7/5/2021 Executive Director