DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

TRG
Docket No:
8 October 1999

3395-99

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United
States Code section 1552.

A three—member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 5 October 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 reenlisted in the Navy on 13 December
1993.
urinalysis showed that you had used methamphetamines.

On 23 August 1995, a Navy drug laboratory reported that a

Based on the positive urinalysis, you were processed for an
administrative discharge.
(ADB) met on 25 February 1996 and found that you had committed
misconduct due to drug abuse and recommended an honorable
discharge.

An administrative discharge board

On 28 February 1996 your counsel submitted a “statement of
deficiencies” pointing out the lack of evidence showing that you
had knowingly used metharnphetamines, your many years of excellent
service, and your limited duty status.
The recorder for the ADB
responded to the statement of deficiencies, in part, as follows:

• In this case, not only was the presence of the
controlled substances in question, methamphetamine,
found in (his) body, the (ADB) considered the
additional circumstantial evidence of (his) knowingly
ingesting the drug.

(He) was afforded an NCIS

polygraph test where he was asked whether he had abused
methamphetainine or any other illegal drugs during the
week in question.
drugs, the polygraph machine indicated that (he) was
being deceptive in his answers.
more than sufficient evidence to justify their
unanimous finding of misconduct in this case.

When (he) denied that he had abused

Clearly, the (ADE) had

The recorder noted that your many years of excellent service were
considered by the ADB because an honorable discharge was
recommended instead of a discharge under other than honorable
conditions.
recorder points out, in effect, that processing for discharge by
reason of misconduct takes precedence over disability
proceedings.

Concerning the request for a medical discharge the

On 29 March 1996, the commanding officer recommended to the
discharge authority that the findings and recommendation of the
ADB be approved and forwarded a copy of the ADB, the statement of
deficiencies, and the recorders response for action.
On 23 April
1996 the discharge authority directed an honorable discharge by
reason of misconduct and the assignment of an RE—4 reenlistment
code.
had completed 17 years, 1 month and 19 days of active service.

You were so discharged on 24 May 1996.

At that time, you

In your application you are requesting reinstatement in the Navy
as if you were never discharged.
stated, the Board assumed that you were essentially raising the
same issues set forth in the statement of deficiencies.

Although not specifically

The Board believed that the AIDE record, which included the
urinalysis and the polygraph showing deception, was sufficient to
support the recommendation for discharge by reason of misconduct.
Since a recommendation for an honorable discharge is rarely made
in cases such as yours, it was clear to the Board that this was
done because of your many years of excellent service.
Finally,
the Board noted that any service connected disabilities can be
evaluated by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
concluded that the discharge was proper as issued and
reinstatement in the Navy was not warranted.

The Board

Accordingly, your application has been denied.
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

The names and

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that
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.

You are entitled to have the

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

JLP:jlp
Docket No: 5685-99
8 September 1999

From:
To:

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

_1~-.—----~_~_

REVIEWOP NAVAL-~~~~

Ref:

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

End:

(1) DD Form 149 w/attachments
(2) Series of Documents
(3) Subject’s naval record

1.
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject hereinafter referred to as Petitioner,
filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be
corrected to show that he reenlisted within three months of the expiration of his prior
contract to establish entitlement to the payment of Lump Sum Leave (LSL).

2. The Board, consisting of Mr. Dunn, Swarens, and Ms. Davies, reviewed Petitioner’s
allegations of error and injustice on 8 September 1999 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.

In correspondence attached as enclosure (2), the office having cognizance over the

subject matter addressed in Petitioner’s application has commented to the effect that the
request has merit and warrants favorable action.

CONCLUSION

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of the
contents of enclosure (2), the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the
following corrective action.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

Docket No. 5685-99

That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected, where appropriate, to show that he was
discharged and reenlisted on 15/16 August 1999 vice on or about 29/30 July 1999 to
establish entitlement to the payment of 45 days LSL.

a.

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

Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval
4.
Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(c)) it is certified that 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

G.L~.A~—~----
G. L. ADAMS
Acting Recorder

Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section 6(e) of the revised Procedures

5.
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 authority of reference (a), has been approved by
the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.

28 September 1999

W. DEAN PFEI ~FE~
Executive Directo