DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No. 1604-21 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER , USN, XXX-XX Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. §1552 (b) USD 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,” of 25 July 2018 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments (2) Case summary 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board), requesting that his record by corrected by upgrading his discharge characterization to general (under honorable conditions) and changing his narrative reason for separation and separation code to reflect he was discharged due to secretarial authority. As set forth below, the Board recommended granting relief. 2. The Board, consisting of . , , and , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 26 July 2021 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Petitioner’s application together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of Petitioner’s naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies and reference (b), the 25 July 2018 guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations (Wilkie Memo). 3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to the subject former member’s allegations of error and injustice, finds as follows: a. Before applying to this Board, the Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy. b. On 11 December 1989, the Petitioner enlisted in the Navy and commenced a period of active duty. The Petitioner was in an unauthorized absence status beginning on 27 May 1992 and ended by his surrender to naval authorities on 30 May 1992. The Petitioner commenced another period of unauthorized absence on 1 June 1992, which was ended by his apprehension on 22 June 1992. As a result of his unauthorized absence, the Petitioner missed the sailing of his ship on 17 June 1992. On 23 July 1992, the Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment for two periods of unauthorized absence, missing ship’s movement, failing to obey a commissioned officer, failing to obey a petty officer, and use of methamphetamine. On 29 July 1992, the Petitioner was notified of the initiation of administrative separation processing, and his rights in connection therewith, and he waived his right to an administrative board. On 1 September 1992, the Petitioner’s commanding officer transmitted the Petitioner’s administrative discharge materials to the discharge authority, explaining that Petitioner “was assigned to the Air Dept. where he performed his duties in a highly professional manner. He required little or no supervision and had an excellent knowledge of aviation fuels operations.” The commanding officer further explained that the Petitioner had been transferred to a transient personnel unit, from which the Petitioner absented himself, as a result, the commanding officer requested to discharge the Petitioner in his absence with an other than honorable characterization of service. On 21 September 1992, the discharge authority directed that the Petitioner be discharged in his absence, with an other than honorable characterization of service, and on that day the Petitioner was so discharged. c. The Petitioner seeks clemency based on his post-service conduct and achievements. In support of his contentions, the Petitioner states that he spent decades working to improve himself both personally and professionally and to distance himself from the substance abuse-related misconduct that cut short his otherwise promising Navy career. He states that, for 22 years, he has been employed at the same company, working as an underwater contracting/commercial diver. He explained that he has worked his way up to become the Director of Operations, and he provided information concerning his various certifications and studies. In this role, he is a commercial diving supervisor for underwater pipeline repair as well as a subject matter expert in that same field. He has provided several letters of support describing his character as well as how he has actively pursued the hiring of veterans. d. The Petitioner also makes a mitigation contention, asserting that he suffered a traumatic experience during his service, which should mitigate his misconduct. By way of background, Petitioner did not cast this as a post-traumatic stress disorder assertion, nor did he provide psychological evidence. On 18 February 1991, hit a mine, which caused significant hull damage. The Petitioner included a letter of support from a shipmate who described this incident and the impact it appeared to have on the Petitioner. According to the letter of his shipmate, the Petitioner was standing mine watch and hanging over the bow at the time the mine impacted. Chronologically, the Petitioner’s misconduct, which included periods of unauthorized absence and drug use, followed over a year after this event, and the Petitioner asserts that this event caused him to turn to drugs and alcohol. The Board observed that the Petitioner’s naval records reveal he has been awarded a Combat Action Ribbon and the Kuwaiti Liberation Medal, among others. CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and in view of reference (b), the Board determined that there exists an error or injustice warranting relief. Specifically, the Board found that, applying the factors set forth in the Wilkie Memo, as well as applying liberal consideration, that the Petitioner should be granted clemency. The Board determined that the Petitioner has demonstrated that he has worked hard in his profession, obtaining several certifications, and has provided evidence that he actively seeks to assist veterans and otherwise engages in positive citizenship such as by working in a reserve capacity with the Houston Sheriff’s Deparment. The Board also considered the Petitioner’s mitigation contention, and determined that it is not unreasonable to conclude that the traumatic experience the Petitioner suffered may have impacted his actions and mitigated his misconduct. Accordingly, the Board voted unanimously to upgrade his discharge characterization to general (under honorable conditions), change his narrative reason for separation, separation authority and separation code. Accordingly, based on a careful review of all of the facts presented, the Board concludes that Petitioner is entitled to relief as follows. RECOMMENDATION In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 indicating that his discharge at separation was general (under honorable conditions), narrative reason and authority for separation Secretarial Authority, and separation code JFF, and That Petitioner be issued a general (under honorable conditions) certificate; and That no further changes be made to Petitioner’s record. A copy of this report of proceedings shall be filed in Petitioner’s naval 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. 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 the reference, has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy. 7/30/2021 Executive Director