Y
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 203704100
ELP
Docket No. 8713-98
21 May 1999
Dea
This is in reference to your
naval record pursuant to the
States Code, Section 1552.
application for correction of your
provisions of Title 10, United
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 19 May 1999.
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of
Board.
your application, together with all material submitted in support
thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations
and policies
Your allegations of error and
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.
The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 18 June 1997 for
The record reflects that you served
four years as an SA (E-2).
without incident until 5 December 1997 when a Navy drug
laboratory reported that your urine sample on 24 November 1997
On 18 December 1997, your
had tested positive for cocaine.
commanding officer provided the drug laboratory a list of the
prescription drugs you were taking and requested that your urine
sample be re-tested.
1997 that your specimen was re-tested and was confirmed positive
for cocaine.
The drug laboratory reported on 23 December
received.nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 9 February 1998 for
You
use of cocaine.
rate to SR (E-l), a forfeiture of $200, and 14 days of
restriction and extra duty.
Punishment imposed consisted of reduction in
On 2 March 1998, you were notified that you were being considered
for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of
misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by the foregoing
positive urinalysis test.
rights and elected to present your case to an administrative
discharge board (ADB).
You were advised of your procedural
You appeared before an ADB with counsel on 27 April 1998.
ADB heard your testimony and that of s CTIC (E-7) and your
department head, a chief warrant officer (W-4).
the testimony and numerous statements attesting to your
character, the ADB found that you had not committed misconduct
and you were retained in the Navy.
After reviewing
The
However, on 18 May 1998, you were dropped from
disciplinary reasons and were assigned to general duty.
submitted a special request on 15 December 1998 to be reinstated
to your former pay grade since the ADB found no misconduct.
However, the commanding officer denied your request, noting that
the reduction was the result of NJP and the action of the ADB did
not overturn a judicial proceeding.
"A" school for
CT1
You
The NJP authority found you guilty of use of cocaine by a
Absent evidence that the chain of
In its review of your application the Board conducted a careful
search for any mitigating factors which might warrant removing
the NJP and restoring all rights, privileges, and property lost
as the result of the disciplinary action on 9 February 1998.
However, no justification could be found.
Your contention that
the ADB overturned the NJP at which you were punished is without
merit.
preponderance of the evidence.
custody was broken, there appears to have been no abuse of
discretion by the NJP authority to impose NJP.
conflicting adjudications based on the same evidence, only the
commanding officer determines guilt or innocence at NJP.
ADB makes findings which are contrary to an NJP, those contrary
findings apply only to the administrative separation action.
ADB cannot overturn the NJP.
extremely fortunate that the ADB found that you committed no
misconduct.
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished
upon request.
The Board believes that you were
While there were
If an
The
The
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that
You are entitled to have the
favorable action cannot be taken.
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.
2
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,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
3
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10826-02
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 CRS Docket No: 10826-02 11 September 2003 The Board also considered an advisory opinion on.a from the Navy Environmental Health Your allegations of error and application for correction of your provisions of title 10 of the United This is in reference to your naval record pursuant to the States Code section 1552. commanding officer's decision at NJP that you had used drugs was reasonable, given...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06979-00
in which his division officer, LT (G) upon returning ETCS (St.C) recalls an event on March 17, 1997 aboard USS SAIPAN from morning officers' call, informed him that the CSD division had been selected for urinalysis screening. that had the whatever division I am in. contention that CSF division was selected only because you were a However, every individual who testified member of that division.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04427-01
In a statement he submitted on the date of the NJP, The disciplinary action was based on a urine sample when he received NJP for use of f. On 23 June 2000 Petitioner appealed the NJP on the grounds that he was denied access to the "litigation package" prepared by the Navy drug laboratory, "innocent ingestion" defense or question the chain of custody at the drug laboratory. At the time of the positive urinalysis result, Petitioner had never been the subject of a disciplinary action during...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03659-02
The record On 30 July 2001 you appealed the NJP based on an investigation into the chain of custody of the urine samples, and a negative analysis of a hair sample you submitted to a private laboratory after the NJP. The Board concurred With regard to your contentions pertaining to the chain of custody of the urine samples, sample, the Board concurred with the remarks in the commanding officer's endorsement of your NJP appeal to the effect there was no chain of custody problem with analysis...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00571-00
refrigerator first, the other individual who was unable to provide a full sample placed the bottle in the refrigerator after him. stated that you had not used LSD. map" for the commanding officer's use in deciding However, the February 1992 issuance of Navy When it was issued with OPNAVINST The Board concluded that since the CO did not have (NA.VADMIN) "road the appendix was clearly designed to The Board believed that the urinalysis was conducted in accordance with regulations and was...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900146
The Applicant was unable during any of these proceedings to convince either his CO or the ASB he either didn’t knowingly use cocaine or the lab test was in error. Especially found credible was the testimony of Mr. S. that the Applicant could have taken cocaine on the Friday or Saturday preceding the urinalysis and still tested positive at the levels indicated in the drug test administered on 14 November 2006. The NDRB determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057866C070420
Counsel states that the evidence failed to prove that the applicant knowingly used cocaine. Counsel states that the government’s case, both at trial and before the board, rested solely on the results of the urinalysis test. The board stated that the applicant was not desirable for further retention in the military service and recommended that he be discharged with a general discharge.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11133-06
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.You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 18 September 1986 at age 27 and served for nearly two years...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03943-99
Though Petitioner's BCNR case file does not establish Petitioner's actual notice of the current version of DOD Directive 1010.4, the fact Petitioner's rehabilitative potential was affirmatively considered and assessed prior to his discharge makes resolution of this issue unnecessary. Application to Petitioner's case. drug use was evidenced by a urinalysis for methamphetamine and Petitioner's further drug use following a second positive urinalysis in Petitioner's history of drug use and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 07333-09
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...