Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04114-01
Original file (04114-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

:

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370.510

0

TJ R
Docket No: 4114-01
21 November 2001

i

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 of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 14 November 2001.
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Board.
your application,
thereof, your naval record,
and policies.

Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of
together with all material submitted in support
and applicable statutes, regulations,

Your allegations of error and

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.

The Board found you enlisted in the Navy on 7 March 2000 at the
age of 17.

Your record contains an enlisted performance evaluation for the
period 1 June 2000 to 9 March 2001 which noted that you were
being processed for separation after your urine had tested
positive for drugs during a command random urinalysis screening.

This evaluation also noted that you were not recommended for
retention or reenlistment.
noted as follows:

The commanding officer's comments

(Member) tested positive for drug use during

Evaluation submitted on occasion of Member's separation
from the NAVAL service under other than honorable (OTH)
conditions.
command urinalysis screening.
responsibility and demonstrated poor judgment.
hazardous and unsafe practices as noted.
direction well and failed to adhere to the Navy's  
Tolerance" drug policy.

Effectively avoided

Tolerated
He did not take

"Zero

Subsequently, the discharge authority directed an other than
honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse,
At that time you
and on 9 March 2001 you were so discharged.
received an RE-4 reenlistment code.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and immaturity and your contention that your discharge
However, the Board concluded

1 and bar from reenlistment are unfair because you should not be
punished forever for one mistake.
' these factors and contention were not sufficient to warrant

recharacterization of your discharge or a change in your
reenlistment code because of your drug related misconduct.
Board further noted that your drug use was a direct danger to
other in regard to your trade as an air traffic controller.
Given all the circumstances of your case, the Board concluded
your discharge and reenlistment code were proper as issued and no
change is warranted.
denied.

Accordingly, your application has been

The

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
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.
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



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00967-01

    Original file (00967-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    be separated and requested retention in the Navy. On 22 September 2000 the separation authority directed an entry level separation and you were so separated on that same day. 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 | CY2002 | 03737-02

    Original file (03737-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 November 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. fully supported the other than honorable discharge, based on the positive urinalysis. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08356-00

    Original file (08356-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The advisory opinion opined that second hand marijuana smoke or Vicks inhaler would not cause a false positive the use of a Further, the opinion found that the other listed urinalysis. medications provided in the statements by you and Dr. H would not, alone or in any combination, produce false positive results for methamphetamine, amphetamine or marijuana with the testing procedures utilized by the Navy Drug Screening Laboratories. In the subject case the Navy Drug Screening Laboratory...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05792-01

    Original file (05792-01.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. separated under similar circumstances, the Board could find no error or injustice in your assigned reenlistment code. 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 | CY2002 | 10826-02

    Original file (10826-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2002 | 01284-02

    Original file (01284-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your Your allegations of error and application on 8 May 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. as evidenced by the positive You were advised of and waived all of and you were assigned an RE-4 On 17 May 2000 you the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code Regulations require to an...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00571-00

    Original file (00571-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | BCNR | CY2001 | 06979-00

    Original file (06979-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2001 | 05830-01

    Original file (05830-01.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. ing and assistance center determined that you were still not drug dependent and scheduled you for a four week outpatient course, beginning in March 1985. tested positive again for marijuana use on an aftercare urinalysis. not heed the warning that further drug abuse could result...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06329-02

    Original file (06329-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additionally, the Board concurred with the Accordingly, your application has been The names and votes of the members of the panel will be In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all such as your youth and immaturity potentially mitigating factors, and the contention that you should be reinstated since your positive urinalysis for ecstacy was flawed, based on a newspaper However, the Board concluded that article on Navy drug testing. The Department of Defense (D Progra...