From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Docket No. 2661-21 Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER , XXX XX , USMC Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. §1552 (b) USECDEF 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 with 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 other than honorable (OTH) discharge be upgraded to honorable character of service. 2. The Board, consisting of Mr. , Mr. and Mr. reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 12 May 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, to include 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 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 interest of justice to review the application on its merits. c. Petitioner enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 30 April 1959. On 6 July 1962, Petitioner was convicted by civilian authorities of petty theft. As punishment, Petitioner was sentenced 10 days confinement. On 26 July 1962, Petitioner was again convicted by civilian authorities of petty theft. As punishment, Petitioner was sentenced 120 days confinement. On 8 November 1962, Petitioner’s commanding officer (CO) recommended that Petitioner be administratively discharged from the Marine Corps with an OTH characterization of service. The CO noted Petitioner was advised of the contemplated action against him and further advised of his rights. On 26 November 1962, an unfitness/misconduct discharge review board was convened and opined that “considering Petitioner’s good military record and his apparent serious desire to serve out his period of enlistment, it is the opinion of this board that Petitioner has the capability to rehabilitate himself and serve honorably.” The review board recommended that Petitioner be retained in the Marine Corps. On 8 January 1963, the commanding general disapproved the board’s recommendation and recommended administrative discharge with an OTH character of service. On 10 January 1963, the separation authority directed administrative discharge with an OTH character of service by reason of misconduct. On 28 January 1963, Petitioner was so discharged. d. Petitioner states that his CO concurred with the unfitness/misconduct discharge review board in that he had a perfect record. Petitioner contends that the CO stated that he would let him finish out his enlistment without any consequences on his record if he kept is nose clean. He followed his orders completely and then around two months later a Warrant Officer called him into his officer and told him he was getting an “undesirable discharge.” He further states that the warrant officer stated the CO was on vacation and the “assistant CO” had turned the paperwork in by mistake. e. Characterization of service is based in part on conduct marks assigned on a periodic basis. Petitioner’s conduct mark average was 4.1. At the time of his service, a conduct mark average of 4.0 was required to be considered 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 partial relief, given the totality of his circumstances. Additionally, the Board reviewed Petitioner’s 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 Board initially notes Petitioner’s misconduct and does not condone his actions. However, in light of reference (b), applying liberal consideration and considering his proficiency and conduct scores that would merit an honorable characterization of service, the Board concluded that the Petitioner’s discharge shall be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions) character of service as a matter of clemency. The Board concludes that no useful purpose is served by continuing to characterize Petitioner’s service as other than honorable and recharacterization to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge is appropriate. 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 Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) indicating that on 28 January 1963, Petitioner was discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) character of service. That no further changes be made to Petitioner’s record. That a copy of this report of proceedings 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 reference (a), has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy. 5/25/2021 Executive Director