DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 553-21 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER ,, USN Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (b) USD memo of 25 Jul 18, “Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations” Encl: (1) DD Form 149 (NR20210000553) 1.Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting a change to his reentry (RE) code from RE-4 to an RE-1 or some other code that would allow for reentry into the Navy. References (a) through (b) apply. 2. The Board consisting of Mr. Mr. , and Mr. , reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 2 July 2021, 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 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. It is in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and review the application on its merits. c. Petitioner enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 8 July 2008. d. Petitioner had continuous honorable service from the start of his enlistment through 25 December 2012. He continued on active duty without a break in service, earning a 4.29 Individual Trait Average on his 16 November 2014 to 15 November 2015 evaluation. His Commanding Officer further noted in the evaluation that Petitioner was “#1 of 40 PO1s throughout the command” and “would be competitive if ranked with my Chiefs TODAY.” e. On 28 April 2016, Petitioner appeared before an Administrative Separation Board. The Administrative Separation Board considered whether Petitioner violated a lawful general order, committed sexual assault, and/or committed indecent exposure. The Board unanimously found that Petitioner did not commit sexual assault or indecent exposure. The Board found that Petitioner did violate a lawful general order but unanimously recommended that Petitioner be retained in Naval service. f. On 19 May 2016, Commanding Officer, Navy Operational Support Center, recommended approval of the Administrative Separation Board’s findings, but submitted Petitioner for separation on the basis of the finding that Petitioner violated the Navy’s Sexual Harassment Policy. g. On 9 January 2017, Petitioner was discharged from the Navy on the basis of Misconduct/Commission of a Serious Offense and originally received a Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) with an other than honorable characterization of service. The DD Form 214 was subsequently changed on 7 March 2017 to reflect a general discharge. h. Petitioner submitted a request to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) for an upgrade to his discharge characterization on the contention of injustice. NDRB reviewed Petitioner’s application and available service record, noting his two Good Conduct Medals and his high Proficiency and Conduct Marks. NDRB also noted compelling evidence from fellow Sailors who served with Petitioner at the command during the period of the allegations which led to the Administrative Separation Board. NDRB did not agree with the command’s Administrative Separation Board results and found that a change in the characterization of service was appropriate. NDRB granted Petitioner relief and determined that Petitioner’s record should be changed to reflect an honorable discharge on the basis of “Secretarial Authority” with a separation code of KFF. i. In his application to the Board, Petitioner submits NDRB’s decision and asks that his RE code be changed to reflect an RE-1 or some other code that would allow for his reentry into the Navy. Petitioner’s application notes that he would like to continue to serve his country and return to the military as soon as possible. CONCLUSION The Board reviewed Petitioner’s submissions as well as his available service record. The Board considered the analysis and findings of NDRB and concluded that Petitioner’s request merits favorable action. The Board noted that apart from the finding at the Administrative Separation Board, that Petitioner’s service record was stellar with his most recent evaluation prior to the Administrative Separation Board ranking him as an Early Promote with an Individual Trait Average of 4.29. Furthermore, the Board considered that the Administrative Separation Board made a sole finding of misconduct with a violation of a lawful general order, but unanimously found that Petitioner did not commit the misconduct of sexual assault or indecent exposure. Furthermore, the Administrative Separation Board unanimously voted to recommend retention in the Navy. Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of the Administrative Separation Board’s recommendation to retain Petitioner in the Navy, NDRB’s determination that Petitioner merits an honorable discharge, Petitioner’s stellar service history prior to the Administrative Separation Board, and his desire to return to military service, the Board concluded that Petitioner’s request warrants corrective action. The Board determined that to correct an injustice, Petitioner’s reentry code should be changed from RE-4 to RE-1. In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action. RECOMMENDATION: That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that on 9 January 2017, Petitioner was issued an honorable discharge by reason of “Secretarial Authority” and his RE code is RE-1. That Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214. 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 Regulation, 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. 7/9/2021 Executive Director