Docket No: 4731-19  
Ref: Signature Date  
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records  
To:   Secretary of the Navy  


Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 
     (b) USD memo of 25 Jul 18, “Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity,                   Injustice, or Clemency Determinations” 

Encl:(1) DD Form 149 (NR20190004731) 

1.  Petitioner filed enclosure (1) with this Board, requesting correction to his record to reflect an upgrade in the characterization of his service from other than honorable to honorable, a change to his narrative reason for separation to “Secretarial Authority,” a change to his separation program designator (SPD) code, and a change to his reentry code to RE-1.  References (a) and (b) apply.     

2.  The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 12 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 his naval service records, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 

3.  The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to the 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 enclosure (1) was not filed in a timely manner, it is in the interest of justice to review the application on its merits.  

c.  Petitioner served honorably in the Marine Corps during two active duty enlistments from 10 January 1975 to 24 May 1977, and from 26 May 1977 to 12 February 1981.  Petitioner entered a third enlistment and began a period of active duty on 13 February 1981.  

d. On 25 September 1982, Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for a period of unauthorized absence from 

e.  On 18 June 1985, after returning state-side, Petitioner was involved in an altercation at , when an Army military policeman (MP) pulled over the vehicle in which Petitioner was a passenger.  

f.  As a result of the altercation, in November 1985, Petitioner was found guilty at special court martial proceedings of three specifications of violating Article 128 (assault) and two specifications of violating Article 134 (drunk and disorderly and wrongfully communicating a threat).  Petitioner was sentenced to hard labor for 30 days and reduction to pay grade E-3. 

g.  Following the special court martial proceedings, administrative separation proceedings were initiated against Petitioner on the basis of commission of a serious offense with the possibility of an other than honorable characterization of service.  Petitioner elected to waive his right to appear before an administrative separation board. 

h.  On 27 May 1986, the Inspector Instructor (I&I) recommended Petitioner receive a general discharge, citing Petitioner’s numerous awards and recommendations throughout his career.  The commanding general disagreed with the I&I’s recommendation for a general characterization of service and directed that Petitioner receive an other than honorable characterization of service. 

i. On 20 June 1986, Petitioner was discharged from the Marine Corps for misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and received an other than honorable characterization of service and a reentry code of RE-3C. 

j.  Petitioner requests an upgrade to his characterization of service, a change to his narrative reason for separation and corresponding SPD code, and a change to his RE-3C re-entry code.  Petitioner provided the Board with a memorandum in support of his request and asserts that the separation process violated MARCORSEPMAN para. 1004.4c3, that the other than honorable discharge is unjust because Petitioner was targeted by Army MPs because his then-wife was having an extramarital affair with one of the Army MPs at , and that the other than honorable discharge should be upgraded as a matter of justice in consideration of his otherwise exemplary service and post-discharge accomplishments. 

CONCLUSION: 

The Board carefully reviewed Petitioner’s request, taking into account the potentially mitigating factors to include his personal situation with the Army MP at the time of the incident and his overall performance within the Marine Corp.  

The Board reviewed the available records and determined that Petitioner was properly notified of administrative separation proceedings against him, and that the recommendation for administrative separation was routed appropriately through his chain of command to the Commandant of the Marine Corps.  The Board took into consideration the available records and determined that the presumption of regularity applies.  The Board concluded that administrative separation processing was properly executed and that Petitioner was discharged in accordance with regulatory guidance in place at the time. 

With regard to Petitioner’s request for a change to his characterization of service, the Board concluded that, in light of Petitioner’s contributions to the Marine Corps, his overall sustained honorable service in the military from 10 January 1975 through 18 June 1985, and in consideration of the I&I’s recommendation that he receive ageneral characterization of service, partial relief should be granted as a matter of clemency.  Specifically, the Board voted to upgrade Petitioner’s characterization of service to general and to change the narrative reason for separation to “Secretarial Authority.” 

The Board found that the serious nature of Petitioner’s misconduct, specifically as documented by the special court-martial’s guilty finding of assault against an Army MP, was such that an honorable characterization of service is not warranted.  Similarly, the Board found that corrective action to the RE-3C re-entry code is not appropriate given the seriousness of Petitioner’s misconduct of assaulting a fellow service member who was executing his military duties as an MP. Finally, based on the same reasoning, the Board determined that Petitioner’s separation authority and SPD code should not be changed to align with the change to his narrative reason for separation.  Accordingly, the Board concluded that only partial corrective action is appropriate.  Specifically the Board found that Petitioner’s discharge should reflect a general characterization of service and a narrative reason for separation of “Secretarial Authority.” 

In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action. 

RECOMMENDATION: 

That Petitioner’s record be corrected to show that he was discharged from the Marine Corps on 20 June 1986, with a general characterization of service and that his narrative reason for separation is “Secretarial Authority.” 

That Petitioner be issued a new Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) for the period of 13 February 1981 to 20 June 1986, reflecting a general characterization of service and a narrative reason for separation of “Secretarial Authority.” 

That no further corrective action be taken. 

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 2 May 2019. 

4.  It is certified that 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.