From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER 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, requesting his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) be changed to reflect an upgraded characterization of service and a narrative reason for separation, separation code, and separation authority that reflects “secretarial authority”. His case, which was most recently denied by the Board on 15 July 2019, was reconsidered in accordance with Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Sec’y of the Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 26 September 2019, 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 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 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 Navy on 16 April 1953. On 4 January 1954, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for creating a disturbance and drinking wine in the barracks. On 26 August 1954, he received a second NJP for a one-day unauthorized absence (UA). On 27 June 1955, he was convicted by summary court-martial for a ten-day UA and sentenced to one month of hard labor, one month of restriction, and forfeiture. On 15 February 1956, he was convicted by general court-martial for two periods of UA, 26 September 1955 to 10 October 1955 and 17 October 1955 to 4 January 1956. He was sentenced to confinement, reduction in rank, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). The BCD was subsequently approved at all levels of review, and on 14 September 1956, Petitioner was discharged. d. Petitioner contends he left the command to go home to care for his sick mother who was having an operation and, because his family was in turmoil, he “overstayed” his leave. He contends he has regretted this decision his entire life and because of his shame, has never told his daughter, who is now serving on active duty in the Navy, that he was not honorably discharged. In his personal statement, Petitioner makes no excuses for his UA periods; he only admits failure and regret. He contends he was not only young but was also very uneducated and functioning with only a fifth grade reading level, making him ill-equipped to handle the challenges of Navy life. A review of Petitioner’s record supports these contentions. Specifically, a document from the executive officer states Petitioner’s “USN Reaching Achievement Examination score of 78 is equivalent to school grade 5.54”. Additionally, his enlisted classification record says he attended two months of seventh grade and repeated four grades. e. In support of his request, Petitioner contends his post-service record warrants clemency. Specifically, he contends he has demonstrated good character through a lifetime of consistency and service at work and home. He retired from working for his local Department of Public Works where he started as a garbage man and then advanced to bulldozers and cranes. Unable to have children of their own, he and his wife began fostering children at the age of 55 when both had retired. They fostered five children, adopted three, and now have six grandchildren. Petitioner contends he has shown “evidence of rehabilitation”. Specifically, “whereas his misconduct leading to discharge stemmed from him repeatedly running away from his obligations, he has done just the opposite for the last six decades. He has stayed. He was a loyal city employee for 26 years, has been a loyal husband for 60 years, and a consistent loving father to adopted and fostered children”. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board determined Petitioner’s request warrants relief in the form of clemency, and, in the interest of justice, concluded his discharge should be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions and his separation reason and corresponding data changed to 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 “general, under honorable conditions,” narrative reason for separation as “secretarial authority,” separation code as “JFF,” and separation authority as “MILPERSMAN 1910-164”. A copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record. Upon request, the VA be informed that Petitioner’s application was received by the Board on 31 July 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.