DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No. 3267-19 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/ attachments 1. Pursuant to the reference, Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed the enclosure with this Board requesting that his narrative reason for separation be changed. Implicit in this request is that changes also be made to the characterization of service indicated on Petitioner’s Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214). 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 14 May 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 the enclosure 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 26 May 1989. On 9 June 1993, Petitioner was arrested by civilian authorities for sexual battery of a minor. Petitioner was released from civil confinement on 2 July 1993, after entering a plea of guilty to lewd and lascivious act upon or in the presence of a minor child. As punishment, Petitioner was sentenced to one-year of community control, four years of probation, a psycho-sexual evaluation and treatment, fifty hours of community service, no contact with the victim until counselor approves, no unsupervised contact with minors until counselor approves, and payment of $253.00 court costs. On 12 August 1993, Petitioner received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for an unauthorized absence (UA) totaling 21 days. On 25 October 1993, Petitioner was arrested by civilian authorities for violating the terms of his probation. d. On 3 January 1994, Petitioner was notified of an administrative action to separate him from the naval service because of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and civilian conviction. Petitioner elected his right to consult with military counsel and to present his case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). Prior to the convening of the ADB, on 25 January 1994, Petitioner was found guilty of violating his probation. As punishment, Petitioner was sentenced to confinement for nine months and ordered to pay $253.00 court cost. On 16 February 1994, the ADB was convened and found that the Petitioner had committed misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and civilian conviction and recommended administrative discharge from the naval service with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service. The commanding officer (CO) concurred with the ADB’s recommendation. The separation authority approved the recommendation and directed that the Petitioner be administratively discharged from the naval service by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service and the narrative reason “Misconduct Commission of a Serious Offense. On 6 April 1994, Petitioner was so discharged, except his narrative reason was listed as “Engaged in Sexual Perversion.” e. Petitioner contends that the summary for his reason for discharge is incorrect. He further contends that he was denied the right to challenge the ADB’s decision. When the ADB convened, he had never met, seen or spoken to his military counsel before, during or after the ADB. His counsel had presented no statements on his behalf, and that his counsel had decided without conferring with him to decline a right to submit a letter of deficiency regarding the results of the ADB. Additionally, Petitioner states that he was charged, but was not convicted of the charge in which they based the summary reason for his discharge on his DD Form 214. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants partial relief. Regarding Petitioner’s narrative reason for separation, the Board concluded is in error. The Board noted that the separation authority assigned the Petitioner’s narrative reason for separation as “Misconduct due to Commission of a Serious Offense.” TheBoard concludes Petitioner’s narrative reason for separation shall be changed to “Misconduct due to Commission of a Serious Offense.” The Board considered all your contentions, and concluded that your current characterization does not reflect an error or injustice that merits corrective action. RECOMMENDATION: In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an error and injustice warranting the following corrective action: That Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 to indicate that on 6 April 1994, Petitioner’s narrative reason for separation was “Misconduct due to Commission of a Serious Offense.” That no further changes be made to Petitioner’s record. A copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record. Upon request, the Department of Veterans Affairs be informed that Petitioner’s application was received by the Board on 19 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 the reference, has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.