Docket No. 10656-19 
Ref: Signature Date 
 
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)  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 with attachments 
 (2) Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP) Record, 7 February 1958 
(3) Record of Discharge, Release from Active Duty, or Death, 23 Mar 1959 
(4) Record of Discharge, Release from Active Duty, or Death, 27 Aug 1963 
(5) Enlisted Performance Record 
 
1.  Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) requesting that his characterization of service be upgraded from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable.       
 
2.  The Board reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 26 August 2020 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that 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 Petitioner’s naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and 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 enclosure (1) was not filed in a timely manner, it is in the interest of justice to waive the statute limitation and review the application on its merits. 
 
     c.  Petitioner enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 28 August 1957.   
 
     d.  On 7 February 1958, Petitioner received NJP for an unauthorized absence of approximately six hours in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and for violating a command instruction in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. (Enclosure (2)). 
 
     e.  On 23 March 1959, Petitioner was released from active duty and transferred to the U.S. Naval Reserve (USNR).  At the time of his release from active duty, he was not recommended for reenlistment and was given a general (under honorable conditions) character of service.  (Enclosure (3)).  Characterization of service is based, in part, on conduct and overall trait averages which are computed from marks assigned during periodic evaluations.  Petitioner’s final conduct average was 3.0 and his overall trait average was 2.8.  (Enclosure (5)).  An average of 3.0 in conduct was required at the time of Petitioner’s separation for a fully honorable characterization of service. 
 
     f.  On 27 August 1963, Petitioner was discharged from the USNR at the expiration of his enlistment with a general (under honorable conditions) character of service. (Enclosure (4)). 
 
     h.  Petitioner contends that he first noticed an error back in 1963 when he received his discharge paperwork after serving his six years of active and reserve duty.  He never thought anything of it until recently when research revealed to him that he should have received an honorable discharge.  Petitioner asserts that he was proud to serve, that he served during the Lebanon Crises in 1958, and performed all the duties asked of him.  He was released from active duty six months early due to personal problems at home. 
 
MAJORITY CONCLUSION: 
 
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Majority of the Board concluded that Petitioner's request warrants favorable action.   
 
In reaching this conclusion, the Majority noted only one disciplinary infraction in the Petitioner’s record for relatively minor misconduct.  It also recognized that Petitioner’s overall trait average warranted the general (under honorable conditions) at the time that it was administered, but noted that Petitioner’s final overall trait average was brought down by his “professional performance” ratings rather than any ratings related to his conduct.  Especially considered in light of the guidance provided by reference (b), the Majority determined that equitable relief was appropriate in the Petitioner’s case under the circumstances.  It found that no useful purpose is served today, more than 60 years after his discharge from active duty, by continuing to characterize Petitioner’s service as general (under honorable conditions).  Accordingly, the Majority determined that the interests of justice are served by upgrading Petitioner’s characterization of service to honorable.     
 
MAJORITY RECOMMENDATION: 
 
In view of the foregoing, the Majority finds the existence of an error and injustice warranting the following corrective action: 
 
That Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 indicating that he was discharged from active duty on 23 March 1959 with an honorable characterization of service.  
 
The Petitioner’s Record of Discharge, Release from Active Duty, or Death (NAVPERS—601/NAVCOMPT 512), be corrected to reflect that on 27 August 1963 he was issued an Honorable Discharge certificate and that the word “NOT” be deleted from the line preceding “Issued Honorable Discharge Button (USN/USNR).” 
 
That Petitioner be issued an Honorable Discharge certificate reflecting his discharge from the USNR on 27 August 1963.  
 
That no further changes be made to the Petitioner’s record. 
 
That a copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record. 
 
That, upon request, the Department of Veterans Affairs be informed that Petitioner's application was received by the Board on 18 September 2019. 
 
MINORITY CONCLUSION: 
 
The Minority of the Board did not believe that the Petitioner adequately justified the waiver of the three-year statute of limitations.  It also noted that Petitioner waited over 50 years to submit his application to the Board.  Accordingly, the Minority found that relief was not warranted in Petitioner’s case. 
 
MINORITY RECOMMENDATION: 
 
That Petitioner’s request 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 this matter. 
 
5.  The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review and action.  
 
 
11/19/2020