DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 4450-19 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 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. 2. The Board, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 14 May 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, 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 on 9 April 1981. Between 2 July 1981 and 2 December 1982, he was promoted from private first class to corporal. On 31 May 1983, he was convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) for an unauthorized absence (UA) from 19 April 1983 to 17 May 1983 and adjudged seven days of confinement and forfeiture. On 11 June 1983, he was convicted by SCM for being derelict in the performance of his duties by failing to supervise the cleaning of an assigned passageway and disobeying a lawful order to field day the passageway. He was adjudged 15 days restriction, 15 days hard labor, and reduction in rank. On 26 July 1983, Petitioner began a period of UA, which ended on 16 October 1983. d. On 2 December 1983, Petitioner submitted a written request for administrative discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for the extended UA. 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, his request was granted and his Commanding Officer was directed to issue him an other than honorable (OTH) discharge by reason of the good of the service. On 13 January 1984, Petitioner was discharged with an OTH characterization of service. e. Petitioner contends the extreme stress of the hostile command climate caused him to “make a decision that was not in his best interest.” Specifically, Petitioner contends the following: (1) Petitioner describes, in detail, the hostile command climate that existed within the Marine detachment onboard the . What began as a very successful tour of duty where he served as a Captain’s orderly, turned into a nightmare for Petitioner after Captain B’s change of command. The hostile work environment, coupled with illegal activities such as a “pay for leave” scheme, improperly marking rounds as “spent” and then transporting them off the ship, and prohibiting Marines from “going outside the chain of command,” pushed Petitioner to absent himself in April 1983. Upon his return, Petitioner contends he was stripped of his supervisory authority but then later convicted for dereliction of duty because he failed to supervise. Petitioner contends he was unable to continue under the abusive command and, seeing no other options, absented himself in July 1983. While in an UA status, he witnessed the murder of his best friend and was held as a material witness by the State’s Attorney. After final reaching an agreement with the Marine Corps that it would allow Petitioner to return to to testify, Petitioner was surrendered to his command. (2) Petitioner contends he was given a choice to “take a discharge or face court-martial.” Knowing policy that all UA Marines will be returned to the to complete their tour of duty and not realizing had been relieved of duty, Petitioner requested administrative discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial. Petitioner contends that, had he known the abusive command leadership had been removed, he would have taken his chance at court-martial in hopes of completing his enlistment contract. (3) Petitioner contends his performance at boot camp and during the first seventeen months of ship dutywhen he was promoted three times and maintained a “pristine record of service,” warrant an upgraded characterization of service when one considers the hostile, abusive conditions within the detachment. (4) During his time on the ship, Petitioner filed complaints with his command leadership and the military, to include the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and the Congressional representatives and senators. He contends these letters should have been treated as Article 138 complains but instead, no action was taken to remedy the wrongs. (5) Petitioner contends he has led an “exemplary life” since his discharge which shows that his misconduct was in response to the abusive command and not due to a “defect in his character.” Hecontends he has consistently held a job, avoided any legal issues and has been described as “patient, kind, level-headed, stoic.” f. Petitioner submitted numerous handwritten letters from his time in service. These letters, some written by him to his father while on the ship and some written to him from his friends while he was UA, corroborate Petitioner’s contention that an extremely hostile and abusive environment existed in his detachment onboard . Petitioner also submitted copies of newspaper articles, which further corroborate his contentions. Further, he submitted a copy of the memo written by to all members of the Marine detachment, which detailed what would happen in the event of “unauthorized absences and leave extensions.” g. Prior to the change of command, Petitioner was assigned PRO/CON marks on five occasions, to include three semi-annual reporting periods. His average PRO/CON marks for the first half of his enlistment were 4.6/4.6 CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes Petitioner’s request warrants relief. The Board, applying liberal consideration, determined there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that the Marine detachment onboard was a hostile, abusive work environment. The Board specifically noted the alleged illegal activity and well-chronicled harassment that was captured at the time of the events through letters written by the Petitioner to members of Congress, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, the Sergeant Major, and command leadership. TheBoard also noted Petitioner’s perspective of the hostile command climate through his handwritten letters to his father and through letters received by him from fellow Marines. Further, theBoard noted Petitioner’s outstanding performance record evidenced by his three promotions in less than 17 months and his 4.6/4.6 marks prior to the change of command. Noting Petitioner’s well-documented attempt to report the hostility and harassment, the Board determined the hostile command climate mitigated his misconduct, which led to his written request for an OTH discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. MAJORITY CONCLUSION – upgrade to honorable The majority concluded that, absent the hostile, abusive command climate, which led to Petitioner’s UA misconduct, Petitioner’s service is most appropriately characterized as honorable. TheBoard noted his record prior to the change of command and determined that “but for” the hostile work environment created by , Petitioner’s performance and conduct would not have rapidly declined. Applying liberal consideration, the Board determined Petitioner’s service should be characterized as honorable and his separation data and reentry code should be changed to reflect “secretarial authority.” MAJORITY RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the majority directs the following corrective action: Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 indicating his characterization of service as “honorable,” narrative reason for separation as “secretarial authority,” separation code as “JFF1,” separation authority as “MARCORSEPMAN 6421,” 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 22 April 2019. MINORITY CONCLUSION – upgrade to general, under honorable conditions. The minority concurred with the majority’s finding that a hostile, abusive command climate existed within the Marine detachment onboard but noting Petitioner’s total misconduct, which included an UA from 19 April 1983 to 17 May 1983, determined Petitioner’s service should be characterized as general, under honorable conditions. MINORITY RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the minority recommends the following corrective action: Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 indicating his characterization of service as “general, under honorable conditions.” 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 22 April 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 theBoard’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 approve MAJORITY recommendation Reviewed and approve MINORITY recommendation