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 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments 1. Pursuant to the reference, Petitioner, a former enlisted Marine, filed the enclosure with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) requesting a change to his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) to reflect an upgrade to his characterization of service and a change in his narrative reason for separation. 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 23 January 2020, and, pursuant to its regulations, determined the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, relevant portions of his naval service records, and applicable statutes, regulations, policies. 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 the enclosure 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 Reserves on 5 January 1972. On 30 September 1974, he was involuntarily activated for active duty orders, effective November 1974, after failing to “attend reserve meetings” (24 reserve drill periods). On 30 June 1975, he began a period of unauthorized absence (UA) which ended when he surrendered on 9 July 1975. He began a second period of UA on 11 July 1975 which ended when he surrendered on 7 January 1976. On 19 January 1976, he submitted a written request for an undesirable discharge from the naval service for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for the extended UA periods. Prior to submitting this request, he was given an opportunity to confer with a qualified military lawyer, at which time he was advised of his rights and warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge. His request was found to be sufficient in law and fact by the command Staff Judge Advocate on 27 January 1976. On 5 February 1976, his request was granted and the discharge authority directed an undesirable discharge for the good of the service. On 11 February 1976, pursuant to his request, Petitioner was so discharged. d. Petitioner, through counsel, contends that “if I knew and understood, I would have had a trial instead.” He also contends that he did not understand the impact the discharge would have on his entire life. In support of this contention, he submitted documentation explaining how he had struggled through school, was 14 years old in the sixth grade, and dropped out in the tenth grade. The documentation states he was very slow in written and oral communications, had poor social ability, and had difficulty keeping up in school even though it was clear that he was putting forth effort and wanted to be in school. The school psychologist described him as someone who took statements literally, had a reserved manner, and because of his IQ of 77 on a full scale, should have been placed in the “slow learner’s category of intelligence.” e. Petitioner contends that he absented himself to help his family, which consisted of several younger siblings and struggling parents. Specifically, he provided documentation stating his family was on welfare and his parents were unable to support the family, to the point that his father had once been arrested for neglecting his family. Petitioner contends he was torn between his dedication to the service and his dedication to caring for his parents and siblings. Petitioner further contends that the Marine Corps unjustly ignored the circumstances of his UA which was due to familial hardship. f. Petitioner also contends that the Marine Corps erred in enlisting him due to his mental capacity. He was assigned to mental group III when he enlisted after taking a classification and assignment test which he scored as low as level V in many subjects, including verbal skills. Additionally, Petitioner submitted documentation showing he had been previously discharged from the U.S. Army because he had been untruthful about his age when he enlisted and was not old enough to enlist, an action which he contends should have been a clear demonstration to the Marine Corps that he lacked the mental capacity to consider his actions thoroughly. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of the evidence of record, the Board determined Petitioner’s request warrants partial relief. The Board carefully reviewed Petitioner’s application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered each contention. However, the Board determined there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice to warrant upgrading Petitioner’s characterization of service because the extended periods of UA warranted an undesirable discharge. The Board also noted he received a benefit from being allowed to separate with an undesirable discharge vice risking greater punishment at a court-martial. Although the Board determined there was no probable material error or injustice warranting corrective action, the Board decided, in the interest of justice, to grant Petitioner’s request for a change in his narrative reason for separation from “to escape trial by courts-martial” to “secretarial authority.” RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: That Petitioner be issued a new Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD form 214) indicating his narrative reason for separation as “secretarial authority,” separation code as “JFF1,” and separation authority as “MARCORSEPMAN 6421.” 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. That upon request, the VA be informed that Petitioner’s application was received by the Board on 18 October 2018. 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 the reference, has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.