Docket No: 8840-19                                                                                 Ref: Signature Date 
 
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) USD Memo, “Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for  
    Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency  
    Determinations,” 25 July 2018 
 
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments  
 (2) DD Form 4, Enlistment Contract – Armed Forces of the United States, 18 March 1974 
 (3) BUMED Memo, Subj: [Petitioner]; applicant for ENL USN, 4 March 1974 
 (4) NAVPERS 1070/613 (“Page 13”) and UA Message Traffic 
 (5) NAVPERS 563/NAVCOMPT Form 536 (Standard Transfer Order)  
 (6) NAVPERS 1070/607 (“Page 7”) Court Memorandum (NJP) 
 (7) NAVPERS 1070/613 (Administrative Separation Acknowledgement) 
 (8) SF 88, Report of Medical Examination (Separation Physical)  
 (9) OPNAV Form 2110/28 (Administrative Separation and CHNAVPERS Approval)  
          (10) DD Form 214 and NAVPERS Form 1070/614 
  (11) NAVPERS 601-9, Enlisted Performance Record 
  
     
1.  Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) requesting that the characterization of his service be upgraded from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable.    
 
2.  The Board reviewed Petitioner's contentions of error and/or injustice on 11 September 2020, and, pursuant to its regulations, the Majority of the Board 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 Petitioner’s naval service and medical 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 the 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.  Petitioner enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active service on 18 March 1974 at the age of 17 with parental consent.  See enclosure (2).  Prior to his enlistment, Petitioner revealed during his enlistment physical examination on 10 October 1973 that he had been diagnosed with migraine headaches.  By memorandum dated 4 March 1974, the Department of the Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery (BUMED) found that Petitioner did not meet established physical standards for enlistment by reason of migraine headaches, but recommended a waiver to permit his enlistment.  This waiver was subsequently granted to permit his enlistment.  See enclosure (3). 
 
 d.  On 1 August 1975, Petitioner commenced a period of unauthorized absence (UA) from his squadron VF-102 located at Naval Air Station, , , and on 30 August 1975 he was declared a deserter.  See enclosure (4).  On 2 September 1975, Petitioner’s UA terminated when he surrendered to military authority at Naval Air Facility,  ().  Following his surrender, Petitioner was immediately transferred to ,  () for disciplinary action.  See enclosure (5). 
 
 e.  On 19 September 1975, Petitioner received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for his 32 days of UA.  He was sentenced to forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty, and reduction to the lowest enlisted paygrade (E-1).  See enclosure (6).   
 
 f.  On 22 September 1975, Petitioner acknowledged that he was being processed for a general discharge for the convenience of the government.  See enclosure (7).   
 
 g.  No medical, neurologic, or psychiatric abnormalities were noted on Petitioner’s separation physical examination on 23 September 1975.  See enclosure (8). 
 
 h.  Petitioner was discharged from the Navy on 24 September 1975 with a characterization of service as “under honorable conditions” (i.e., general).  The narrative reason for his discharge was “burden to command.”  See enclosure (10).   
 
 i.  Petitioner acknowledges in enclosure (1) that there was no “injustice” in the Navy’s action to discharge him.  He does, however, imply that his problems in the Navy that resulted in his separation were aggravated by his migraine headaches.  Specifically, he asserts that his migraine headaches, for which he received a waiver to enlist, returned while he was deployed on-board the U.S.S.  () with such intensity that he had to be hospitalized, and that the ship’s medical staff simply did not have the medicine and/or awareness necessary to adequately treat him.  Following his deployment under these conditions, he asserts that he went home to see his family doctor, and he did not return until surrendering himself to military authorities.   
 
 
MAJORITY CONCLUSION: 
 
The Board considered the totality of the circumstances under the guidance of reference (b) to determine whether relief was warranted in the interest of justice.  In this regard, the Board considered, among other factors, that Petitioner had disclosed his migraine headaches prior to his enlistment pursuant to a waiver; his assertion that his migraine headaches returned during his deployment and were ineffectively treated on-board the U.S.S. ; that Petitioner was relatively young at the time of the misconduct that resulted in his discharge; that a significant period of time has passed since Petitioner’s discharge; that the misconduct in question was relatively minor and that Petitioner surrendered himself to military authorities; that Petitioner was gainfully employed until his retirement and raised a family subsequent to his discharge; and that Petitioner demonstrated significant rehabilitation after his discharge.  Considering these factors in light of the guidance of reference (b), the Majority determined that the interests of justice warrant upgrading Petitioner’s characterization of service to honorable.  Specifically, the Majority found that no useful purpose is served by continuing to characterize Petitioner’s service as general (under honorable conditions), and that therefore an upgrade to fully honorable is appropriate at this time.   
 
MAJORITY RECOMMENDATION: 
 
In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following corrective action: 
 
That Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 indicating character of service as “Honorable,” the narrative reason for separation as “Secretarial Authority,” the separation authority as “MILPERSMAN 1910-164,” the separation code as “JFF,” and the reentry code as “RE-1J.” 
 
That Petitioner be issued a new 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 10 September 2019.  
 
MINORITY CONCLUSION: 
 
The Minority also reviewed Petitioner’s application in light of the guidance provided by reference (b), and considered the same potentially mitigating factors described in the Majority conclusion above.  After careful and deliberate consideration, however, the Minority determined that relief was not warranted in the interests of justice.  In reaching this conclusion, the Minority noted that Petitioner left his duty station and went into a UA status without any legal justification or excuse for 32 days while still contractually obligated to serve.  Under the circumstances, the Minority believed that it was obvious that Petitioner did not intend to complete his enlistment when he surrendered himself in  ), rather than by reporting back to his squadron in .  As a result, the Minority did not find the Petitioner’s record to be otherwise so meritorious to deserve an honorable discharge, and unequivocally believed that it would be unfair to those Sailors who honorably completed their obligated service without incident to reward Petitioner with the relief he requested.  The Minority also noted that Petitioner’s overall active duty trait average in conduct did not meet the Navy’s threshold for fully honorable characterization of service.  See enclosure (11).  Accordingly, even in light of the guidance of reference (b) and acknowledging that flawless service is not required to receive an honorable discharge, the Minority believed that Petitioner’s current characterization of service is appropriate under the totality of the circumstances.   
 
MINORITY RECOMMENDATION: 
 
In view of the foregoing, the Minority recommends that Petitioner’s application be denied and that no corrective action be taken on his record.   
 
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. 
 
12/14/2020