DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 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 (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 general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable, change his narrative reason for separation, reenlistment code, separation code, and to receive all eligible medals awarded during his naval service. 2. The Board, consisting of Ms. Mr. and Mr. reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 11 August 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 reference (b). 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 Navy and began a period of active duty on 25 December 1989. d. On 29 August 1990, Petitioner received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for two specifications of failure to obey a lawful order. e. On 26 July 1991, Petitioner received his second NJP. Specifics of the charge(s) and specification(s) were not available in the record. f. On 21 May 1992, Petitioner received his third NJP for an unauthorized absence. g. Subsequently, on 7 June 1992, Petitioner was notified that he was being recommended for administrative discharge from the Navy because of Misconduct due to Commission of a Serious Offense. Petitioner was advised of, and elected, his procedural rights, to consult with and be represented by military counsel, and his right to present his case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). h. On 27 August 1992, an ADB was convened and found that Petitioner committed misconduct and recommended administrative separation from the Navy with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service. i. After the convening of the ADB, Petitioner’s commanding officer (CO) then forwarded Petitioner’s administrative separation package to the separation authority (SA) recommending that Petitioner be administratively discharged from the Navy with an OTH characterization of service. The SA approved the recommendation for administrative discharge from the Navy by reason of Misconduct due to Commission of a Serious Offense, however, directed that Petitioner’s characterization of service be characterized as general (under honorable conditions). On 30 October 1992, Petitioner was discharged. j. Petitioner contends that the presumption of regularity that might normally permit to assume that the military service acted correctly in characterizing his specific service as less than honorable does not apply to his case because of the evidence and supporting documents he submitted on his behalf. Petitioner further states: 1) He was wrong and immature in his choices that he made during his time in the service. He was dealing with his wife wanting a divorce towards the end of his service; 2) In his opinion, his service was honest and faithful, but the negative aspects of his conduct outweighed his good; and 3) He has been a good citizen since his discharge; he has obtained his “GED” and has consistently held a job. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes Petitioner’s request warrants partial relief. The Board reviewed Petitioner’s application under the guidance provided in reference (b). The Board carefully reviewed Petitioner’s application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered Petitioner’s contentions and supporting documentation. Unfortunately, even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board discerned no procedural defect, impropriety, or inequity in Petitioner’s discharge and determined his service was appropriately characterized as general (under honorable conditions). The Board concluded there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice that warrants granting relief. Based upon review of Petitioner’s application and supporting documentation, the Board determined that Petitioner’s misconduct as evidenced by three NJPs, outweighed these mitigating factors. Accordingly, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined Petitioner’s request does not merit relief. In regard to Petitioner’s request to be awarded all medals received, the Board concluded that Petitioner’s record shall be reviewed and he be awarded all eligible medals as appropriate in accordance with his period of service from 25 December 1989 to 30 October 1992. 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 all medals received during his period of service from 25 December 1989 to 30 October 1992. 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. 9/3/2021 Executive Director