D E P A R T M E N T O F   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  

WMP 
Docket No:  6881-01 
8 April 2002 

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 3 April 2002.  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. 

You reenlisted in the Navy on 28 August 1984 as a J01  (E-6) 
after over seven years of prior active service. The record shows 
that you were assigned to Naval Station, New York as the drug 
and alcohol program advisor  (DAPA) to the commanding officer. 

The record reflects that you appeared before a medical board in 
June 1986, which reported that you were in good health until 
August 1985, when you began experiencing episodic vertigo, 
tinnitus, and headaches.  It also stated that you had a 
stapedectomy performed on the right ear, which essentially cured 
the episodic vertigo, your right ear pain and the tinnitus, but 
that you were experiencing sharp, stabbing headache pain.  These 
headaches were initially as infrequent as one to two weeks 
apart, but over the three months prior to the medical board, 
they occurred virtually every day.  On occasion, you had four to 

six of these headaches each day.  Diagnosis was atypical cluster 
headaches and status post stapedectomy of right ear.  The 
recommendations of the medical board were to attempt to control 
the cluster headaches through medication and a six month period 
of limited duty. 

The record further reflects that you were referred for 
psychiatric evaluation and hospitalization on 4 August  1986 
after your expression of a suicidal ideation.  The evaluation 
found that you had limited insight and poor judgment.  You 
gradually showed better control and insight, compared to your 
initial anxiety.  Your depression with suicidal ideation was 
gradually reduced.  However, you kept complaining of having 
headaches daily and stated, "Now I can live with headaches but I 
don't think I am able to continue my military service with this 
headache."  You were diagnosed with psychogenic pain disorder, 
atypical cluster headaches, atypical depression, and mixed 
personality disorder.  Further, the impression was that you were 
not fit for full duty and that you wished to be discharged if 
the headaches were not relieved. 

You again appeared before a medical board on 19 August  1986, at 
which you reported that you were continuing to have daily 
headaches.  After  these headaches, you reported that you were 
physically drained.  The diagnosis of this medical board was 
atypical cluster headaches, adjustment disorder with depressed 
mood, and status post stapedectomy.  The medical board concluded 
that you were unable to return to full duty and recommended that 
your case be referred to the Central Physical Evaluation Board 
(CPEB).  On 11 September 1986 the CPEB reviewed your case and 
found you unfit to perform your duties and assigned you a 
disability rating of 10%.  You appealed this ruling and 
requested a 3 0 8   rating. 

On 22 October 1986 you were advised that you were suspected of 
wrongful use of cocaine due to a positive urinalysis.  Your 
command was advised by medical authorities to remove you from 
your duties as the DAPA due to this positive urinalysis test. 

Based on your positive urinalysis you received nonjudicial 
punishment  (NJP) for wrongful use of cocaine between  6 September 
and 6 October 1986.  Punishment imposed was extra duty for 45 
days and reduction in rate to 502  (E-5), which was suspended for 
six months. 

The Regional Physical Evaluation Board  (RPEB) reviewed your case 
on 25 November 1986 and determined that you were unfit to 
perform your duties.  The RPEB found the evidence and testimony 
indicated only a minimal degree of impairment which did not 
sufficiently impact your performance, and found that the 
previously assigned 10% disability rating was appropriate. 

On 31 December 1986, the commanding officer of the USS SAVANNAH 
(AOR 4) returned a letter to your commanding officer that you 
were believed to have written between 12 December and 26 
December 1986.  This letter, which had been addressed to his 
command, was mailed in a government, postage paid envelop'e, and 
was clearly of a personal nature and not related to government 
business or activities.  This letter was returned to your 
commanding officer because it clearly dealt with legal matters 
concerning the urinalysis test and the recent nonjudicial 
punishment, and because of the direct violation of military 
postal directives. 

On 12 January 1987, your suspended punishment awarded at NJP on 
10 November 1986 was vacated and you were awarded 45 days of 
extra duty and reduction in rate to 502  (E-5).  You also 
received NJP for wrongfully using an official envelope for 
personal use and wrongfully impeding a lawful investigation 
during a command urinalysis sweep.  Punishment imposed was 
forfeiture of $510 per month for two months and reduction in 
rate to J03  (E-4) . 

You were notified that separation action was being initiated by 
reason of misconduct due to drug abuse on 12 January 1987.  At 
this time, you were advised of all procedural rights, consulted 
with counsel, and retained all of your rights.  On 28 January 
1987, after again being advised of all procedural rights and 
consulting with counsel, you wa~vkxj all of your rights with the 
exception of the right to submit statements on your behalf 
either verbally or in writing before an administrative discharge 
board  (ADB) or in writing if an ADB was not convened. 

On 4 February 1987, your commanding officer forwarded your 
separation action to Commander, Naval Military Personnel 
Command, who approved your separation under other than honorable 
conditions on 19 February 1987.  On 4 March 1987 you were 
discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of 
misconduct due to drug abuse with an RE-4 reenlistment code. 

In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed 
all potentially mitigating  factors such as your medical 
condition at the time of your discharge, your lengthy period of 
honorable service, the statements in support of your 
application, and your statements to the commanding officer and 
to the Naval Discharge Review Board.  Additionally the Board 
considered the statements of your commanding officer concerning 
his investigation, your personal  letter written concerning your 
positive urinalysis test and the fact that you were assigned as 
the command's DAPA.  The Board concluded, although your medical 
problems were significant, you were fully cognizant of the 
Navy's  "Zero Tolerance" policy concerning illegal dfug usage. 
Despite this knowledge, you made a conscious decision to violate 
that policy and use cocaine.  Additionally, the Board concluded 
that the contents of your letter were factual in nature, and 
were fully investigated by your commanding officer prior to his 
initiation of nonjudicial punishment.  Furthermore, based on the 
severity of these incidents and the fact that you were assigned 
in a highly sensitive and responsible position, the Board 
concluded that your NJP and subsequent discharge under other 
than honorable conditions were appropriate.  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 
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