DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 3135-19/ 0858-92 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (b) 32 CFR 724.11 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/ attachments 1. Pursuant to reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted Marine, filed the enclosure with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) requesting correction to his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) to reflect an upgraded characterization of service and changes to the narrative reason for separation and separation authority. His case, which was most recently denied by the Board on 19 November 1992, was reconsidered in accordance with Board for Correction of Naval Records procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Sec’y of the Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 9 April 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, 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 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 and began a period of active duty on 14 June 1968. On 28 May 1969, he requested a humanitarian transfer to remain stateside and in close proximity to his elderly and ill parents. Although his Commanding Officer (CO) recommended approval, pending a replacement, the Commandant of the Marine Corps disapproved the request because the conditions did not meet the requirements necessary to warrant transfer. On 13 August 1969, Petitioner received non-judicial punishment for a 4.5 hour unauthorized absence (UA). On 20 August 1969, he began a period of UA that ended 216 days later on 25 March 1970. Upon return from the UA, Petitioner received a psychiatric evaluation which resulted in a diagnosis of “inherent, pre-existing personality deviation.” The psychiatric examiner recommended administrative discharge by reason of unsuitability. d. On 25 June 1970, Petitioner submitted a written request for administrative discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial. Prior to submitting this request, he conferred with a military lawyer who advised him of his rights and warned him of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge. Subsequently, after the staff judge advocate deemed the request sufficient in law and fact, Petitioner’s request was granted and his CO was directed to issue him an other than honorable (OTH) discharge by reason of the good of the service. On 22 July 1970, Petitioner was discharged with an OTH characterization of service. At the time of discharge, his average PRO/CON marks were 4.4/3.5. e. On 24 March 1975, Petitioner applied to the Presidential Clemency Board. On 10 November 1975, the President granted Petitioner a full unconditional pardon for his absence offenses and a clemency discharge to replace his less than honorable discharge. On 29 July 1976, Headquarters Marine Corps issued Petitioner a clemency discharge certificate and a Correction to his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 215). f. Petitioner, through counsel, contends the Board’s previous denial of his request for an upgrade to his characterization of service was a material error and unjust. Specifically, he contends the following: 1) Petitioner contends the Board “holds no statutory or regulatory authority to reject or ignore the President’s unconditional pardon” or deny Petitioner’s “clemency discharge upgrade due to a lengthy period of unauthorized absence.” 2) Petitioner contends the Board’s “notion that ‘considerable clemency was extended’ to Petitioner in 1970 completely ignores and even refutes the full pardon granted six years later by the President, as well as the 1976 clemency discharge.” He further contends that “in effect, the Board reinstituted a punishment for which the President had already granted full conditional relief.” CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants relief. The Board noted Petitioner’s mental health condition as evidenced by his 22 May 1969 and 20 May 1970 psychiatric evaluations. The Board further noted the denial of his humanitarian transfer request based on the well-established and well-documented declining physical and mental health of his 71-year old father and his 60-year old mother’s inability to care for his father. The Board also noted Petitioner’s PRO/CON marks were 4.4/3.5 during the timeframe that 3.8/4.0 were the required marks for an honorable characterization of service. Lastly, the Board noted that, per reference (b), “a clemency discharge serves as a written testimonial to the fact that the individual has satisfied the requirements of the President’s program” but “does not effect a change in the characterization of the individual’s military service…nor does it serve to change, seal, erase, or in any way modify the individual’s past military record.” Considering these factors, the Board determined it was in the interest of justice to upgrade Petitioner’s characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions and change his narrative reason, separation code, and separation authority to “secretarial authority.” RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 indicating his characterization of service as “general, under honorable conditions,” narrative reason for separation as “secretarial authority,” separation code as “JFF1,” and separation authority as “MARCORSEPMAN 6421.” 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 March 2019. 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. 4/23/2020