i

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

Y

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

TRG
Docket No: 8314-98
2 June 1999

Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
Secretary of the Navy

RECORD  O F

(a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552

(1) DD Form 149 w/attachments
(2) Case Summary
(3) Subject's naval record

From:
To:

Subj:

Ref:

Encl:

Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an

1.
enlisted member of the United States Navy filed enclosure (1)
with this Board requesting that his record be corrected to show
continuous active service from 12 November 1982 until 24 June
1985.

The Board, consisting of Mr. Kastner, Mr. Mazza and Ms.

2.
McCormick, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and
injustice on 25 May 1999 and, pursuant to its regulations,
determined that the corrective action indicated below should be
taken on the available evidence of record.
considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval
records, and applicable statutes,

regulations and policies.

Documentary material

The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining

3.
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

a timely manner, it is in the interest of justice to waive the
statute of limitations and review the application on its merits.

Petitioner enlisted in the Navy on 14 November 1978 at
He then served without incident until he was released

C .
age 18.
from active duty on 12 November 1982 with his service
characterized as honorable.
for reenlistment and was assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code
because of a positive urinalysis.
the end of his military obligation on 9 February 1984

At that time he was not recommended

He was honorably discharged at

d.

Petitioner has included with his application a letter,

dated 25 March 1985, from the Naval Military Personnel Command
(NMPC).

The letter states, in part, as follows:

The Army discovered that some Navy personnel were
reported as testing positive in the Department of
Defense drug abuse urinalysis testing program by Army.
Drug Screening Labs during a specific period of time
and that these positive reports could not be
sufficiently substantiated.
Naval Operations has directed reversal of all adverse
action(s) taken against such individuals as the result
of these unsubstantiated tests.

Accordingly, the Chief of

. . .

. 

. Your case has been reviewed and all service record
. 
entries relating to the unsubstantiated urinalysis test
have been removed from your record.

In addition, your discharge has also been reviewed and
a determination was made that your reenlistment code
Enclosed is a new Certificate of
should be upgraded.
Release or Discharge from Active duty (DD Form 214)
with a reenlistment code of RE-1. All copies of the
original DD 214 should be replaced with the new one.

e .

A review of Petitioner's record reveals that the revised
DD Form 214 with the RE-1 reenlistment code is the only such form
in his record, and there is no other documentation showing the
However, the Enlisted Performance
results of the urinalysis.
Record (page 9) still shows that on the date of his release from
active duty on 12 November 1982,
of 2.8 in military behavior and was not recommended for
reenlistment.

he was assigned an adverse mark

f.

Petitioner states that he reenlisted in the Navy as soon
The record

as possible after the NMPC letter of 25 March 1985.
shows that he reenlisted in the Navy on 24 June 1985 for two
He was honorably discharged on 22 June 1987 and was
years.
assigned an RE-Rl reenlistment code.
on 23 September 1987 and has served continuously on active duty
since then.
service.
eligible to transfer to the Fleet Reserve.

Accordingly, he now has over 17 years   of active
If his application is granted he will be probably be

He reenlisted in the Navy

Q*

The Board considered

numerous cases in the mid-1980's
Since the Board
concerning urinalyses which were invalidated.
could not separate the guilty from the innocent, the interest of
justice required that relief be granted in those cases.
Therefore, the Board did everything in'its power to correct the
records as if the invalid urinalysis had not occurred.

Petitioner states that he did not apply to the Board at

an earlier date because he did not know there was a time

h.

2

limitation  and he did  not want to jeopardize his career in the
Navy.
because he is involved in a child-custody dispute with his
wife, and an early retirement might increase his chances of
obtaining custody of his children.

He states that he desires the correction at this time
 

ex-

CONCLUSION:

The Board notes that Petitioner was aware on 25 March

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the
Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants favorable
action.
1985 about the invalid urinalysis but then waited for over 14
years to apply for corrective action.
urinalysis has been invalidated, the Board believes that if he
had applied in 1985, relief would have been granted.
Given the
circumstances, the Board concludes that the record should now be
corrected to show continuous active duty during the period 13
November 1982 until 23 June 1985.

However, since the

The Board believes the best way to implement this action is to
correct the record to show that Petitioner reenlisted in the Navy
on 13 November 1982 for three years.
The record can continue to
show that he reenlisted in the Navy for two years on 24 June
1985.

The Board also believes that the 12 November 1982 adverse mark of
2.8 in military behavior and the entry showing he was not
recommended for reenlistment were only entered on the page 9
because of the invalid urinalysis.
Therefore, the 2.8 mark
should be removed from the page 9 and the entry should show that
he was recommended for reenlistment.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that he

a.
reenlisted in the Navy on 13 November 1982 for three years and
served on active duty until he was honorably discharged on 23
June 1985.

That the Enlisted Performance Record (Page 9) be corrected by

b.
deleting the 12 November 1982 mark of 2.8 in military behavior
and changing the next entry to show that he was recommended for
reenlistment.

C . That any material or entries inconsistent with or relating to
the Board's recommendation be corrected, removed or completely
expunged from Petitioner's record and that no such entries or
material be added to the record in the future.

d. That any material directed to be removed from Petitioner's

3

naval record   be returned to the Board, together with
of Proceedings, for retention in a confidential file
for such purpose, with no cross reference being made
Petitioner's naval record.

this Report
maintained
a part of

It is certified that a quorum was present at the

Board's
4.
and that the foregoing is a true and
review and deliberations,
complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled
matter.

ROBERT D.  
Recorder'

ZSAIMAN

Acting Recorder

Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section
5.
6(e) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of
Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(e))
and having assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby
announced that the foregoing corrective action, taken under the
has been approved by the Board on
authority of reference (a),
behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.

4