DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

SMW
Docket No:6068-07
5 March 2008

From:	Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To:	Secretary of the Navy

Subj REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD 

Ref:	(a) 10 U.S.C. 1552

End:	(1) Case Summary
		(2) Subject’s naval record

1.	Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Marine Corps, applied to this Board requesting an honorable discharge vice the general discharge that he received on 16 June 1981.

2.	The Board, consisting of Mr. Mr. and Mr. ~ reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 5 March 2008, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the limited corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval 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 this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy.

b.	Although the Petitioner’s application was not filed in a timely manner, it is in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and review the application on its merits.

c.	On 11 May 1981, Petitioner enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 17. On 19 May 1981, he disclosed pre-service drug use beyond the use of marijuana and a police record. On 2 June 1981, the separation authority disapproved his retention in the Marine Corps.

d.	On 5 June 1981, Petitioner had two nonjudjcjal punishments (NJP’s) for two instances of willful disobedience of a lawful order. On 9 June 1981, his commanding officer initiated administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to frequent discreditable involvement. In connection with this processing, he acknowledged that separation could result in a general discharge. On 16 June 1981, the separation authority approved the separation recommendation and directed a general discharge by reason of misconduct due to frequent discreditable involvement. On 16 June 1981, he was so discharged. Petitioner was not assigned conduct marks.

e.	In his application, Petitioner requests an upgrade of his general discharge.

f.	Regulations in effect at that time authorized administrative separation of individuals by reason of misconduct due to frequent discreditable involvement if the individual was counseled and given an opportunity to correct his deficiencies. Regulations in effect at that time also authorized administrative separation of individuals by reason of convenience of the government due to an erroneous enlistment if they were found to have a disqualifying factor after enlistment. Characterization of service was determined by overall service record. A general discharge was issued to members whose overall service record was not considered sufficiently meritorious for an honorable discharge because of average conduct marks below 4.0.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants partial relief. In this regard, Petitioner’s separation was not processed in accordance with regulations. The record shows that administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to frequent discreditable involvement was initiated after Petitioner had two NJP’s on the same day. He was never counseled or given an opportunity to correct his deficiencies. However, the Board finds that Petitioner was not granted an enlistment waiver for disqualifying factors discovered after enlistment. Therefore, Petitioner should have been administratively separated by reason of convenience of the government due to an erroneous enlistment. Although there are no conduct marks currently contained in the record, the Board finds the general characterization of service was appropriate, given his two NJP’s. Accordingly, the record should be partially corrected to show that he was separated with a general discharge by reason of convenience of the government due to an erroneous enlistment.

RECQNMENDATION

a.	That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that he was separated with a general discharge by reason of convenience of the government due to an erroneous enlistment on 16 June 1981, vice by reason of misconduct due to frequent discreditable involvement.

b.	That no further relief be granted

c.	That this Report of Proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record so that all future reviewers will understand the reason for the change in 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.

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN	BRIAN J. GEORGE
Recorder	Acting Recorder

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.

					
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
        Executive Director