Docket No: 8341-19 
From:  Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records 
To:  Secretary of the Navy 

Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 
     (b) SECDEF memo, “Supplemental Guidance to MilitaryBoards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans          Claiming PTSD,” of 3 September 2014 
     (c) PDUSD memo, “Consideration of Discharge Upgrade Requests Pursuant to Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval          Records by Veterans Claiming PTSD or TBI,” of 24 February 2016 
     (d) PDUSD memo, “Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review  Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Requests by          Veterans for Modification of their Discharge Due to Mental Health Conditions, Sexual Assault, or Sexual Harassment,” of 25 August 2017 
     (e) USD memo, “Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or          Clemency Determinations,” of 25 July 2018 

Encl:  (1) DD Form 149 w/attachment 

1.  Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board), requesting that his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) be corrected by upgrading his characterization of service from undesirable to honorable.  

2.  The Board reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 16 March 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 enclosure, relevant portions of Petitioner’s 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 regulation 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 enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active-duty service on 26 December 1967.  Petitioner served two combat tours in , returning from his second tour in November 1970. 

d.  Following his tours in , Petitioner began a period of duty on the West Coast.  Petitioner states that his personal effects were misplaced in travel, and he ended up with only one uniform.  Only having one uniform caused strife between Petitioner and a sergeant.  Petitioner states that he and the sergeant had words, the sergeant pushed him, and he pushed the sergeant back.  Afterwards, Petitioner “decided to leave.” Petitioner embarked on a period of unauthorized absence (UA) from 18 January 1971 to 14 June 1971.  

e.  In August 1971, after his return to military control, Petitioner received a psychiatric evaluation from the Marine Corps.  The psychiatric evaluation reflected that Petitioner was 21 years old and had served 25 months of combat duty in.  Petitioner presented with an emotionally unstable personality with no motivation for duty at the time. 

f.  On 20 July 1971, Petitioner requested a discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial for his extensive period of UA.  On 4 January 1972, Petitioner was discharged from the Marine Corps by reason of his request for discharge for the good of the service.  Petitioner received an undesirable discharge and a reentry (RE) code of RE-4. Petitioner’s awards include the National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal with one star, Vietnam Campaign Medal with device, Combat Action Ribbon, Vietnam Cross of Gallantry with palm and gold frame, and Good Conduct Medal. 

g.  In his application, Petitioner requests an upgrade to his discharge characterization and asserts that he went absent without leave in part because he returned to a “messed up USA” after completing two tours in .  Petitioner states that he feels cheated in some ways in that he served his country bravely and did not back down from anything that was asked of him. 

h.  Petitioner’s request was fully and carefully considered by the Board in light of references (b) through (e).  Although the Board noted that Petitioner did not make a claim of a mental health condition that may have mitigated his period of UA, the Board did take into account the findings of his August 1971 medical evaluation, as well as the nature of his misconduct as reflected in his record. 

MAJORITY CONCLUSION 

The majority of the Board, in its review of Petitioner’s entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as his two combat tours in Vietnam and his average conduct and proficiency marks of 3.9/4.3. 

The majority relied on Petitioner’s in-service medical records and noted that the misconduct that led to his discharge began after his two tours in . 

The Board determined that Petitioner’s misconduct was mitigated by the pressure he faced following his return to the United States after two combat tours.  Given the nature of Petitioner’s misconduct, combined with his significant contributions to the Marine Corps as evidenced by his time in and his awards and decorations, the majority found that Petitioner is entitled to full relief.  

The Board determined that Petitioner is entitled to an upgrade of this discharge to reflect an honorable characterization of service. 

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

MAJORITY RECOMMENDATION: 

That Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty to show he was discharged with an honorable characterization of service. 

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 23 August 2019. 

MINORITY CONCLUSION 

The minority concurred with the majority in that it found that Petitioner’s misconduct was mitigated by the pressures he faced following his two tours in  and his significant contributions to the Marine Corps.  The minority determined, however, that Petitioner is entitled to partial relief in the form of an upgrade to a general characterization of service. 

The minority found that an honorable was not warranted given that Petitioner committed misconduct that resulted in his request for an administrative discharge for the good of the service. 

MINORITY RECOMMENDATION: 

That Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty to show he was discharged with a general characterization of service. 

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 23 August 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.  The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review and action. 

4