DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

                 BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS


I
                                2 NAVY ANNEX
                          WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100




                                                  CR5: jdh
                                                  Docket No: 6600-00
                                                  27 April 2001






    Dear

    A three—member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session,
    considered your application and recommended that your naval record be
    corrected as set forth in the attached report dated 23 March 2001. In
    accordance with current regulations, the designated representative of
    the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs
    conducted an independent review of the Board’s proceedings and approved
    the minority recommendation that your application be denied.

    You are advised that reconsideration of your case will be granted only
    upon the presentation of new and material evidence not previously
    considered by the Board and then, only upon the recommendation of the
    Board and approval by the Assistant Secretary.

    It is regretted that a more favorable reply cannot be made. Sincerely,


                                         W.   DEAN PFEIFFER

                                         Executive Director

    Enclosures

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

                    BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

                                2 NAVY ANNEX

                          WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

                                                        CR5
                                                        Docket No: 6600-00
                                                        23 March 2001


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

    Subj:  REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF


    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 Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board
    requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected to show a
    more favorable type of discharge than the general discharge issued on
    31 August. 1981.

    2.     The Board, consisting of Mr. Beckett, Mr. McPartlin, and Ms.
    Newman, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 21
    February 2001 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 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 it appears that enclosure (1) was not filed in timely
    manner, 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 on 29 March 1979 at age 18.

       d.  Petitioner’s record reflects that he received four nonjudicial
    punishments. The offenses included unauthorized absences of more than
    eleven days, missing movement, possession of marijuana, shirking,
    absence from his appointed place of duty, disrespect, and disobedience
    of a lawful order.

       e.  On 25 August 1981 the commanding officer recommended that
Petitioner be separated under Project Upgrade. On 31 August 1981 he
received a general discharge by reason of convenience of the government due
to Project Upgrade.

    f.     In a case such as Petitioner’s, character of service was based,
in large part, on conduct and overall traits averages, both of which are
computed from marks assigned during periodic evaluations. Petitioner’s
conduct and overall traits averages were both 3.1-i’ The minimum average
marks required for a fully honorable characterization of service at the
time of Petitioner’s separation were 3.0 in conduct and 2.7 in overall
traits.

    g.     Petitioner’s Enlisted Performance Record (page 9) reflects that
upon discharge, his military behavior (conduct) average was erroneously
computed as 2.57, vice the correct computation of
3.1.

MAJORITY CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the majority,
consisting of Mr. McPartlin and Ms. Newman concludes that Petitioner’s
request warrants favorable action. In this regard, the majority notes that
his conduct mark average was sufficient for an honorable discharge, despite
his four disciplinary actions. It also appears to the majority that
Petitioner probably was issued a general discharge due to the improperly
computed average in conduct. Based on the foregoing, the majority concludes
that the discharge should be changed to honorable.

MAJORITY RECOMMENDATION:

    a.     That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that he was
issued an honorable discharge by reason of convenience of the government on
31 August 1981 vice the general discharge issued on that date.

    b.     That a copy of this Report of Proceedings be filed in
Petitioner’s naval record.

    c.     That, upon request, the Veterans Administration be informed that
Petitioner’s application was received by the Board on 2 October 2000.

MINORITY CONCLUSION:

Mr. Beckett disagrees with the majority and concludes that Petitioner’s
request does not warrant favorable action. He notes that Petitioner had
four nonjudicial punishments for offenses that included use of drugs,
missing ship’s movement, and disrespect. The minority believes that
numerous disciplinary actions such as Petitioner’s should not be rewarded
with an

                                      2










honorable discharge and that such an administrative separation is contrary
to the traditions of the Naval service. Accordingly, the minority member
concludes that the application should be denied.

MINORITY RECOMMENDATION:

That Petitioner’s request be denied.

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
Recorder
ALAN E. GO SMITH
Acting Recorder

5. The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review and
action.
      L’iL~i.J ‘JLVL. A 1.   .L\~ir’JL~A     t~rrxs~J V £iLJ







MINORITY REPORT APPROVED:

/



                                 APR 192001







                                      3
(
                               JOSEPH G. LYNCH
                          Assistant General Counsel
(Manpower And Reserve Affairs)