From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. §1552 (b) USECDEF Memo of 25 Jul 2018 “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 with attachments 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with a request to upgrade his general (under honorable conditions) (GEN) discharge. Petitioner’s original Marine Corps service number was 1806836. Enclosure (1) applies. 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 17 July 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, 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 enclosure (1) was not filed in a timely manner, it is in the interests of justice to review the application on its merits. c. The Petitioner initially enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active service on 8 January 1958. On 25 August 1958, an Aptitude Board (AB) convened on board U.S. , due to the Petitioner’s emotional immaturity with symptomatic habit formation (enuresis). The Medical Officer’s report noted Petitioner’s history of enuresis was authentic and that his general immaturity and his severe habit formation were disabling to service. The Medical Officer opined that the likelihood of Petitioner’s adjustment to the stresses of military life were inconceivable. The AB members concluded that Petitioner’s condition existed prior to his entry and was aggravated by service. The AB recommended Petitioner’s discharge from the Marine Corps by reason of unsuitability for USMC service, and noted that the Petitioner did not submit any rebuttal matters. d. Ultimately, on 30 August 1958, the Petitioner was discharged with a GEN characterization of service. The Petitioner’s final proficiency/conduct trait averages were 4.0 and 4.0, respectively. Marine Corps regulations in place at the time of Petitioner’s discharge required a minimum trait average of 3.8 in proficiency, and 4.0 in conduct to qualify for a fully honorable characterization of service. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request merits relief, given the totality of his circumstances. Additionally, the Board reviewed his application under the guidance provided in reference (b). Specifically, the Board considered whether his application was the type that was intended to be covered by this policy. The purpose of the Under Secretary of Defense Memorandum (reference (b)), is to ease the process for veterans seeking redress and assist Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records “in determining whether relief is warranted on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency.” The memorandum noted that “increasing attention is being paid to…the circumstances under which citizens should be considered for second chances and the restoration of rights forfeited,” and that “BCM/NRs have the authority to upgrade discharges or correct military records to ensure fundamental fairness.” The memorandum sets clear standards and principles to guide BCM/NRs in application of their equitable relief authority, and further explains that boards shall consider a number of factors to determine whether to grant relief. In this regard, the Board noted that Petitioner’s characterization was harsh, given the lack of any other derogatory matters in Petitioner’s record, his final proficiency/conduct average, and the Petitioner’s overall meritorious service. With that being determined, the Board concluded that no useful purpose is served by continuing to characterize the Petitioner’s service as having been under a GEN characterization, and that purely as a matter in clemency, a discharge upgrade is appropriate at this time. RECOMMENDATION: In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following corrective action. That Petitioner’s characterization of service be changed in block 13a to “Honorable,” coupled with conforming changes made in block 13b, on Petitioner’s DD Form 214 with a discharge effective date of 30 August 1958. That Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge. In the event the Petitioner’s circa 1958 DD Form 214 is obsolete and cannot be reissued, that Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty reflecting the changes noted above. That Petitioner be issued an honorable discharge certificate. 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 June 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 reference (a), has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.