DEPARTMENT OF THE  NAVY 

B O A R D   F O R   C O R R E C T I O N   O F   N A V A L   R E C O R D S  

2  N A V Y   A N N E X  

W A S H I N G T O N   D C   2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0  

ELP 
Docket No.  6134-00 
12 March 2001 

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

A three-member panel for the Board for Correction of Navy 
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your 
application on 7 March 2001.  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 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 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 29 September 
1978 for four years at age 18.  The record reflects that you were 
advanced to RMSN  (E-3) and served without incident until 21 July 
1980 when you were convicted by civil authorities of possession 
of marijuana.  You were fined only $10 since this was your first 
offense . * 
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.  Punishment imposed 
consisted of a suspended reduction in rate to RMSN  (E-3), 
forfeitures of $200 per month for two months, and 40 days of 
restriction. 

On 20 October 1982 you received a second NJP for possession of 
marijuana residue.  Punishment imposed was a reduction in rate to 

RMSN  (E-3), forfeitures of $380 per month for two months, and 60 
days of restriction.  At the time of this NJP, you had been 
frocked to RM2  (E-5) .  Thereafter, you were notified that you 
were being considered for discharge under other than honorable 
conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.  You were 
advised of your procedural rights and elected to present your 
case to an administrative discharge board  (ADB). 

On 1 December 1982 you appeared before an ADB with counsel.  The 
Board heard your testimony and that of your division officer, 
leading petty officer, and two signalmen.  You testified that you 
had stopped smoking marijuana in August 1981 and would give a 100 
percent effort if allowed to remain on board.  You asserted that 
you did not smoke marijuana in October 1982 despite the positive 
urinalysis.  The marijuana residue was found in your car on the 
pier and in a peacoat found in your locker.  You claimed that the 
coat was not yours.  Counsel requested that you be given a 
general discharge if the ADB felt you should not be retained. 
However, the ADB recommended that you be discharged under other 
than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct. 

Counsel appealed the ADB findings, stating that residue found in 
your car was from earlier in the year and not from any current 
involvement with drugs.  The peacoat did not belong to you and 
was found after you left the ship for a period of leave. 
Counsel also noted that the senior member of the ADB was not an 
0-4 line officer.  He recommended that the ADB be disapproved or 
and in the alternative, that the discharge be suspended or that 
you receive a general discharge.  Thereafter the commanding 
officer  (CO) recommended that you be discharged under other than 
honorable conditions.  The CO noted in his recommendation that on 
28 October 1982, the ship received the results of a probable 
cause urinalysis taken on 21 October 1982 which tested positive 
for marijuana.  This test result cast doubt on your denial of 
marijuana use and constituted yet another incident of drug usage. 
The CO noted counselvs appeal and forwarded it with the ADB 
proceedings. 

On 12 January 1983, the Commander, Naval Military Personnel 
Command requested the rationale for not assigning a line officer 
of the grade of LCDR  (0-4) to the ADB.  It was further directed 
that the ADB procedures be re-executed and you be informed that 
you were being processed for discharge under other than honorable 
conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.  The need 
to reconvene the ADB  with all new members was also mentioned in 
the message. 

On 20 January 1983, the 
LCDRs on board, one was 

CO advised CNMPC that there were three 
your department head and it was feared he 

might prejudice the board, one was on temporary additional duty 
out of the area, and the remaining LCDR was a restricted line 
officer.  The CO stated that after reviewing the verbatim tape of 
the ADB proceedings, there was no doubt that it was clearly 
understood by all concerned that you were being processed for 
misconduct due to drug abuse since it was specifically mentioned 
by your counsel in his opening and closing statements.  Further, 
the appointment letter instructed the board to conduct a hearing 
in your case for processing by reason of misconduct.  The CO 

asserted that reconvening another ADB could not completed &For 

to the expiration of your enlistment and if the previoua- 
action was not acceptable, you would be discharged with an 
honorable discharge.  The CO did not believe an honorable 
discharge to be appropriate.  On 20 January 1983, CNMPC directed 
discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of 
misconduct due to drug abuse.  You were so discharged on 28 
January 1983. 

The Naval Discharge Review Board  (NDRB) denied your request for 
an upgrade of your discharge on 27 February 1995. 

In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all 
potentially mitigating factors such as your youth and immaturity, 
two periods of satisfactory service, your excellent promotion 
record, and the fact that it has been more than 18 years since 
you were discharged.  The Board noted the issues you presented to 
the NDRB in 1995 and your contentions that you served your full 
enlistment and performed all of your duties in an honorable and 
professional manner.  The Board concluded that the foregoing 
factors and contentions were insufficient to warrant recharacter- 
ization of your discharge given your record of a civil conviction 
and two NJPs, all of which were drug related.  The Board 
specifically noted that the senior member of the ADB was not a 
line officer, and the C O 1 s  rationale why a staff corps officer 
was assigned as the senior member in your case.  Absent evidence 
that such assignment was prejudicial, the Board concluded that it 
did not iavalidate the ADB  proceedings.  The fact that you 
completed your enlistment did not preclude you from being 
discharged under other than honorable conditions on the last day 
of that enlistment.  The Board believed that three drug related 
offenses and a positive urinalysis prior to the ADB demonstrated 
a willful disregard for the Navy's  drug policy.  The Board 
concluded that the discharge was proper and no change is 
warranted.  Accordingly, your application has been denied. The 
names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished 
upon request. 

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 inaterial 

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, 

W.  DEAN PFEIFE'ER 
Executive Director