DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

SIN
Docket No: 06602-07
26 February 2008

 

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

 

 

    

Subj wRECORD OF
Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 with attachments

 

Saisie Summary
(3) Subject s nava.:

: c Le wey : .
i. PUE Suarit CO LY provaw trslice

former enlisted member of the Navy, tiled enciosure (1) with tlis
Board requesting a change in his under other than honorable (OTH)
discharge.

2. The Board, consisting of Mr. ee Ms . wiheiiii and

Mr. * we reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and
injustice on 20 February 2008 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 enclosure (1) 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. Petitioner reenlisted in the Navy on 18 December 1958
after seven years of honorable service. During the period from
7 May 1959 to 7 June 1960 he was convicted by three special
courts-martial’s (SPCM) for periods of unauthorized absence (UA)
totaling 140 days, disobedience, and minor assault. Petitioner
was sentenced to forfeitures of pay, reductions in paygrade, and
confinement at hard labor. Additionally, during this period he
received the Combat Action Ribbon and first Good Conduct Medal.
d. Based on this disciplinary record Petitioner was
processed for an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness due
to his frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with
military authorities. He elected to consult with legal counsel
and subsequently requested to have his case heard by a Board of

Officers.

e. Subsequently, on 2 September 1960 a Board of Officers
unanimously found that he had committed misconduct, recommended
that Petitioner receive an undesirable discharge, and that his
characterization of service be the type warranted by his service
record. Petitioner's commanding officer (CO) concurred with the
Board’s findings and recommendation and forwarded his case to the
Gischarge authority for review. However, on 21 October 1960, the
discharge authority directed that Petitioner be discharged with
an OTH discharge due to unfitness. Since that action was less
favorable than recommended by the Board of Officers, Navy
regulations allowed Petitioner the right to show cause why such

action should not be taken.

f. On 25 October 1960, Petitioner exercised his right to
submit a statement in an effort to show cause why he should not
be discharged with an OTH discharge by reason of unfitness. He
stated, in part, that the offenses he committed were not
maliciously conceived by him as a means to terminate his
enlistment, rather they had been caused by an “affliction” which,
though he had controlled for three years earlier, he could not
control at that time. On 26 October 1960, Petitioner’s CO
forwarded his statement still concurring with the Board’s
findings and recommendation.

g. On 7 November 1960, the separation authority reviewed
Petitioner’s case, including his show cause statement, and after
thorough evaluation of all facts, reaffirmed his previous
decision that Petitioner be discharged with an OTH discharge. He
received the OTH discharge on 15 November 1960.

h. In his application, Petitioner states that he planned to
stay in the Navy but alcohol set him back. He knew he had a
problem but could not control his drinking. He mentioned
experiencing many instances of alcohol abuse and blackouts caused
by his over indulgence of during his enlistment. He now states
that he is sober, and has been since 23 October 1975. He also
points out that he has helped others with alcohol problems and is
very involved with other community programs helping others in
need.
CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the
Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants relief.

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board notes that the OTH discharge was proper based
on his last period of service that includes convictions by three
SPCM's for periods of UA totaling over four months. However, the
Board also notes his overall record of military service, to
include two periods of prior honorable service with satisfactory
conduct and performance for more than seven years. Also, the
record clearly states Petitioner had a very serious problem with
alcohol and attempted to find help, so it appears to have been
his down fall during his last enlistment and, at that time, there
were no programs offered by the Navy to help servicemembers with
alcohol problems. The Board concludes the record should reflect

a general characterization of service.

In view of the foregoing, the Board recommends the following
corrective action:

 

RECOMMENDATION:

a. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that
on 15 November 1960 he received a general discharge vice the OTH
discharge actually 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 Department of Veterans Affairs be
informed that Petitioner’s application was received on 20 July
2007.

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 Ve
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.

Tet ~S

Fn_W. DEAN PF FER
Executive Director