DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 11110-19 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy 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 (2) Case Summary 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions) character of service. 2. The Board, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 7 October 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 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 enclosure (1) was not filed in a timely manner, it is in the interests of justice to review the application on its merits. c. Petitioner enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 19 March 1982. On 14 November 1982, Petitioner was convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of unlawfully receiving $80 from a Marine which Petitioner knew had been stolen from another Marine. As punishment, Petitioner was awarded reduction in rank, confinement, forfeiture in pay and a BCD. After the BCD was approved at all levels of review, Petitioner was discharged on 19 September 1983. d. Petitioner contends that he was not represented adequately. There were various circumstances that were never allowed in court. He further contends that he should have been punished, just not so severely. And “felt the court was more of a process, quick of adequate, not for me.” Additionally, he was young and didn’t realized what his lawyer was accepting on his behalf, it felt more like an order to accept. BOARD CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request merits partial relief, given the totality of his circumstances. Additionally, the Board reviewed his 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. In this regard, theBoard noted that Petitioner’s characterization was undulyharsh given the type of misconduct involved and the lack of any other derogatory matters in Petitioner’s record. With that being determined, the Board concluded that no useful purpose is served by continuing to characterize Petitioner’s service as a BCD. The Board concluded after reviewing the record holistically, and given the totality of the circumstances and purely as a matter of clemency, that the discharge characterization should be changed to “other than honorable”(OTH). BOARD 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 19 September 1983, Petitioner was discharged with an other than honorable characterization of service. 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 Department of Veterans Affairs be informed that Petitioner’s application was received by the Board on 25 October 2019. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CONCLUSION After reviewing the Board’s conclusion, I believe the Petitioner’s discharge was too harsh and justice was not fully achieved in this case. The original punishment Petitioner received was unjust and wholly disproportionate to the offense committed. Considering the undue severity of the sentence, the lack of any identifiable aggravating circumstances, and the Petitioner’s clean service record, I recommend that the Petitioner’s discharge be changed to a General (under honorable conditions) characterization. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 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 19 September 1983, Petitioner was discharged with a General (under honorable conditions) characterization. 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 Department of Veterans Affairs be informed that Petitioner’s application was received by the Board on 25 October 2019. 4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(c)), 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. The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review and action. Assistant General Counsel (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) Reviewed and Approved Board Recommendation (Partial Relief) Reviewed and Approved Executive Director Recommendation (Grant Relief) Assistant General Counsel (M&RA)