Docket No: 3357-19  
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 with attachments 

1.  Pursuant to the provisions of the reference, Petitioner, a former enlisted sailor, filed the enclosure with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) requesting an upgrade to his characterization of service and correction to the narrative reason for separation on his 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 26 March 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 naval service records, as well as 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 reenlisted in the Navy on 30 March 1983 after serving honorably from 1 March 1980 to 29 March 1983. On 21 January 1987, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for an unauthorized absence (UA) from 0730 to 1058 on 18 December 1986.  On 1 July 1987, he received a second NJP for a UA from 0730 to 0847 on 10 June 1987.  On 23 September 1987, he received a third NJP for a UA from 0730 to 0812 on 19 August 1987 and another UA from 0730 to 0910 on 31 August 1987. 

d.  Petitioner’s record is incomplete in that itdoes not contain the documents pertaining to his administrative discharge but, based on his DD Form 214, it appears that after Petitioner was afforded his procedural rights, the separation authority directed discharge with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  Petitioner was discharged on 30 October 1987 with an OTH characterization of service by reason of misconduct. 

e.  Petitioner contends his discharge was improper and inequitable given the totality of the circumstances and his otherwise excellent performance. 

Specifically, he contends the following: 

1) Petitioner’s discharge and characterization of service are inequitable because his ability to serve was impaired by emotional distress from his failing marriage. 

2) Petitioner’s discharge was based on minor UA periods which totaled just over six hours in duration.  He further contends the UAs could not have formed a basis for separation, therefore the same misconduct should not have been used to form the basis simply because the misconduct was adjudicated by NJP. 

3) Petitioner contends his waiver of his right to counsel and to request a board were “not knowing and voluntary” because he was told by his command that “I could either sign the paperwork and get out or be taken to court-martial.”  He further contends that this “loss of substantial rights” casts doubt on the fairness of his separation and characterization of service.  Further, he contends that if he would have spoken with an attorney, he would have submitted a conditional board waiver for a more favorable characterization of service. 

4) Petitioner’s characterization of service is inequitable in light of the misconduct and his overall service record.  Specifically, he contends that an OTH should only be awarded for “conduct involving one or more acts/omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service.” Further, he contends his service is more properly characterized as honorable since he “generally met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance for naval personnel.” 

5) Petitioner contends his outstanding post-service conduct “casts substantial doubt on the accuracy” of his discharge and characterization of service.  In support of his contentions, Petitioner submitted several advocacy letters. 

6) Petitioner contends his characterization of service has deprived him of “meaningful and necessary” healthcare treatment, specifically treatment for a hip problem incurred while on active duty. 

CONCLUSION: 
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants relief. 

The Board, noting Petitioner’s misconduct consisted of four periods of UA that totaled just over six hours, determined Petitioner’s misconduct was not a “significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service” and was unjustly characterized as OTH.  Additionally, in the interest of justice, the Board determined Petitioner’s narrative reason, separation code, and separation authority, as well as his reentry code, should reflect “secretarial authority.” 

RECOMMENDATION: 
In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: 

Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 indicating the characterization of service as “honorable,” narrative reason for separation as “secretarial authority,” separation code as “JFF,” separation authority as “MILPERSMAN 1910-164,” and reentry code as “RE-1J.” 

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 20 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 Regulation, 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.