Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 07333-09
Original file (07333-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5160

TIR
Docket No: 7333-09
10 June 2010

 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions’ of Title 10, United
States Code, Section 2552. °°.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 8 June 2010. The names and votes of the

members of the panel will be furnished upon request. Your
allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance
with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the
proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by
the Board consisted of your application, together with ali
material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and
applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. In addition the
Board considered the proceedings of the Naval Discharge Review
Board decision docket of 15 May 2003.

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.

You enlisted in the Navy on 21 November 1997 at age 21. You
served without disciplinary incident until 23 March 1999, when
you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for assault.

Your record reflects a Navy drug laboratory report which states,
in part, that in December 2000 your urine sample tested positive
for marijuana. As a result, on 6 February 2001, you were
notified of pending administrative separation under other than
honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.
After consulting with legal counsel, you elected your procedural
right to present your case to an administrative discharge board
(ADB). On 24 July 2001 an ADB recommended discharge under other
than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug
abuse, but further recommended that separation be suspended for
12 months. On 29 August 2001 your commanding officer also
recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by
reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. This recommendation
further stated, in part, that the separation should not be
suspended as recommended by the ADB. On 26 October 2001 the
discharge authority, in concurrence with the commanding officer’s
recommendation, directed discharge under other than honorable
conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse, and on 9%
November 2001, you were so discharged.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and desire to upgrade your discharge. It also
considered your assertions regarding drug abuse, mishandling of
urinalysis process, and improper administrative separation
processing. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were
not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge or
removal of material regarding your misconduct because of the
seriousness of your drug related misconduct. Finally, there is
documented evidence in the record that is contrary to your
assertions. Accordingly, your application has been denied.

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that
favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the
Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material
evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board,
In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a
presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.
Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval
record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the
existence. of probable material error or injustice.

Sincerely,

Ldea$

W. DEAN PFE
Executive Dil

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07333-09

    Original file (07333-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 June 2010. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ali material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03654-09

    Original file (03654-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all Material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. However, by a vote of two to one, the ADB recommended that the discharge be suspended for 12 months. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02309-09

    Original file (02309-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 February 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. On 15 March 1990 a second ADB recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 06134-00

    Original file (06134-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel for the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 March 2001. * You were advanced to RM3 (E-4), extended your enlistment for an additional period of four months, and served without further incident until 15 March 1982, when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for use of marijuana. Counsel also noted that the senior member of the ADB was not an 0-4 line officer.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06551-09

    Original file (06551-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 June 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03220-09

    Original file (03220-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. On 15 April 1991 the discharge authority approved these recommendations and directed your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03958-09

    Original file (03958-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 March 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12318-09

    Original file (12318-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02831-07

    Original file (02831-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. On 16 May 1988 you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06055-09

    Original file (06055-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 April 2010. On 7 July 1988 the discharge authority directed your commanding officer to issue you an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse, and on 20 July 1988, you were sO discharged. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error...