Docket No. 3967-19 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD ICO FORMER MBR USMC Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. § 1552 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments (2) HQMC memo 7200 RFF of 7 Nov 19 (3) Subject’s naval record 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a) Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected to show Petitioner’s narrative for discharge was at the “Convenience of the Government” for a condition, not a disability; characterization of service to Honorable; entitlement to BAH at the with-dependent rate from time of marriage to separation of service; settlement of the amount paid in arrears; and any other relief deemed necessary or appropriate by the Board. 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 25 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 record, 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. On 13 May 2013, Petitioner entered active duty for 5 years. c. On 21 January 2015, Petitioner married an active duty service member. d. On 27 January 2015, Petitioner’s marriage to an active duty service member and request for BAH was received and certified by the Officer in Charge, IPAC, notifying of a date established a joint household effective 21 May 2015 for BAH purposes. e. On 9 June 2015, Petitioner was subject of a non-judicial/NAVMC 113(11) counseling punishment for violation of article 92; failure to obey order or regulation. f. On 11 June 2015, Petitioner was subject to a NAVMC 113(11) counseling for allowing your off duty occupation to hinder his ability to perform and operate as a Marine. g. On 14 December 2015, Petitioner was subject to a NAVMC 113(11) counseling for violation of article 134 (Debt, dishonorably failing to pay). h. On 4 May 2016, Petitioner’s spouse was subject of a non-judicial punishment for violations of article 81 and 107. In January 2015, Petitioner’s spouse conspired with one other person to commit fraudulent marriage for the purpose of wrongfully obtaining benefits afforded to married military members. Furthermore, Petitioner’s spouse willfully signed a summary of interview attesting to the accuracy of said summary, while knowing that information therein was false. i. On 29 May 2016, Petitioner’s spouse was discharged with a General (under honorable conditions) for Disability, Severance Pay, non-combat. j. On 1 September 2016, Petitioner was subject to a NAVMC 113(11) counseling for his pattern of misconduct and for violations of article 92 (failure to obey orders or regulations) at approximately 0300 22 June 2016 he was stopped by base PMO for speed in excess of 15 mph and no proof of registration at the time of violation. k. On 1 September 2016, Petitioner was subject to a NAVMC 113(11) counseling for his substance abuse treatment failure and for violation of article 92 (failure to obey orders or regulations) and article 112a (wrongfully use, possession, etc… of controlled substances). l. On 8 September 2016, Petitioner was subject to a NAVMC 113(11) counseling for Pattern of Misconduct, and he was being processed for administrative separation. m. On 20 April 2017, Petitioner was discharged under other than honorable conditions for P attern of misconduct. n. In correspondence attached as enclosure (2), the office having cognizance over the subject matter addressed in Petitioner’s application has commented to the effect that absent the NJP in Petitioner’s record pertaining to BAH fraud, Petitioner would have been entitled to BAH for his marriage. CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and notwithstanding the contents of enclosure (2), the Board found no evidence of the NJP in Petitioner’s record that the advisory opinion references; therefore, the Board concluded that Petitioner is entitled to BAH from the date of marriage to the date of discharge. The Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following partial corrective action. RECOMMENDATION That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected, where appropriate, to show that: Petitioner was authorized BAH at the without-dependent rate for , from 21 January 2015 to 29 May 2016. Petitioner was authorized BAH at the with-dependent rate for , from 30 May 2016 to 20 April 2017. Note: Defense Finance & Accounting Service (DFAS) will complete an audit of Petitioner’s records to determine if Petitioner is due any back pay. That part of the Petitioner's request for corrective action that exceeds the foregoing was not considered. The Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) was created by Congress in 1946 to provide a method for correction of errors in the records of current and former Navy and Marine Corps members to avoid the need for private legislation. The statutory authority for the BCNR is codified in 10 U.S.C. § 1552. Under that authority, BCNR may only correct service records based on errors or injustices and may do so only after other avenues of administrative relief have been exhausted. No further action can be taken until Petitioner exhausts his administrative remedies with the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB). The purpose of the NDRB is to review and determine whether a service member's discharge was granted in a proper manner and was fair and equitable considering the regulations in effect at the time of the discharge. Within 15 years of discharge a former service member (Applicant) may request a change in the Character of Service (Block 24 on DD Form 214) or the Narrative Reason for Separation (Block 28 on DD Form 214) (or both) using DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States). The NDRB (Naval Discharge Review Board) is authorized to change a NDRB Applicant's Reenlistment Code if related to an accompanying change in discharge characterization or narrative, but this authority is strictly limited to those cases where an applicant's narrative reason or characterization of discharge is changed and that change warrants revision of the previously issued reenlistment code. A copy of this Report of Proceedings will be filed in Petitioner’s naval record. 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.