DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
ELP
Docket No. 4378-01
19 October 2001
Dear
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
Your allegations of error and injustice were
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records,
sitting in executive session,
17 October 2001.
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.
considered your application on
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.
You reenlisted in the Navy on 29 May 1980 for four years as an AN
(E-3).
years of prior active service.
At the time of your reenlistment, you had completed two
The record reflects that you were advanced to AT3 (E-4) and
served without incident until 27 March 1981, when you received
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for possession of a controlled
substance.
in rate to
Punishment imposed consisted of a suspended reduction
ATAN and a forfeiture of $200.
On 13 January 1982 you were counseled regarding the unauthorized
use of a controlled substance and warned that such misconduct
could result in discharge under other than honorable conditions.
A substance abuse report submitted on 18 March 1983 stated that
you denied any drug abuse since your drug related NJP in March
However, a retest of your October 1982 urine sample was
1981.
It was noted that
again verified as positive for marijuana.
while you were in an aftercare surveillance program, another
sample tested positive for marijuana.
Despite the NJP and
repeated warnings, you continued to abuse drugs.
concluded that you had no potential for further service and
administrative discharge was recommended.
The report
You were advised of your procedural rights, declined
On 14 March 1983 you were notified that discharge under honorable
conditions was being recommended by reason of misconduct due to
drug abuse.
to consult with legal counsel or submit a statement in own
behalf, and waived the right to present your case to an admini-
strative discharge board (ADB).
officer recommended discharge under other than honorable condi-
tions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.
However, on
7 April 1983, Commander, Naval Military Personnel Command (CNMPC)
directed a general discharge.
You were so discharged on 14 April
1983.
Thereafter, the commanding
Further, you failed to
In its review of your application the Board conducted a careful
search of your service record for any mitigating factors which
might warrant a recharacterization of your general discharge.
However, no justification for such a change could be found.
The Board noted that at the time of your reenlistment, you had
two years of prior active service and should have been well aware
of the consequences of abusing drugs.
heed the warning regarding the use of controlled substances when
you were counseled in January 1982.
Your contentions that you
believed that the urinalysis was inaccurate and that you were not
properly counseled or advised of your rights is neither supported
by the evidence of record nor by any evidence submitted in
support of your application.
to present your case to an ADB,
show why you should be retained or separated with an honorable
discharge.
The Board believed that you were fortunate that CNMPC
directed a general discharge since most individuals separated for
drug abuse are discharged under other than honorable conditions.
The Board concluded that the discharge was proper and no change
is warranted.
names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished
upon request.
Furthermore, you waived the right
the one opportunity you had to
Accordingly, your application has been denied. The
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such
that favorable action cannot be taken.
the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and
material evidence or other matter not previously considered by
You are entitled to have
2
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
3
NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 06134-00
A three-member panel for the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 March 2001. * 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. Counsel also noted that the senior member of the ADB was not an 0-4 line officer.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05807-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 February 2009. 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to the seriousness of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05227-06
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.On 19 May 1980 you reenlisted in the Navy at age 21 after a prior period of honorable service. On 26...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00070-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 December 2008. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09810-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 June 2011. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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 | CY2007 | 10122-07
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. During the period 12 November 1982 to 18 February 1983, you had three NUP's. 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 | CY2010 | 06092-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 March 2011. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01733-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 January 2010. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06974-10
DA three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 March 2011. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11987-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 August 2011. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval > record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...