Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06958-01
Original file (06958-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
D E P A R T M E N T O F T H E  N A V Y  

BOARD  F O R   C O R R E C T I O N   OF  NAVAL  R E C O R D S  

2   NAVY  ANNEX 

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

TJR 
Docket No: 6958-01 
5 April 2002 

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 2 April 2 0 0 2 .   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 the evidence submitted was insufficient 
to establish the existence of probable material error or 
in justice. 

The Board found you enlisted in the Navy on 24 April 1979 at the 
age of 18.  Your record reflects that you served for nearly two 
years without disciplinary incident but on 10 February 1981 you 
received nonjudicial punishment  ( N J P )   for two specifi.cations of 
disobedience and absence from your appointed place of duty.  The 
punishment imposed was a $580 forfeiture of pay and a suspended 
reduction to paygrade E-4.  Your record also reflects that on 28 
February 1982 you extended your enlistment for 24 months. 

Your record contains an administrative remarks entry dated 28 
January 1983 which notes that you were being retained in the Navy 
even though your urine sample tested positive for marijuana on 4 
January 1983.  Your record also contains a speedletter, dated 30 
September 1983, which identified you as a drug abuser, and noted 
that you were placed in a Navy drug abuse surveillance program 
and had enrolled in drug abuse classes.  However, on 21 October 
1983, you received N J P   for cocaine use.  The punishment imposed 
was reduction to paygrade E-4, extra duty and restriction for 45 
days, and a $400 forfeiture of pay. 

On 21 October 1983 you were you were notified of pending 
administrative separation action by  reason of misconduct due to 
drug abuse.  At that time you waived your rights to consult with 
legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative 
discharge board  ( A D B ) .   On 2 November 1983 your commanding 
officer recommended an honorable discharge by reason of 
misconduct due to drug abuse.  However, on 26 November 1983, the 
discharge authority disapproved the foregoing recommendation and 
directed your commanding officer to reprocess you for an other 
than honorable discharge.  On 7 December 1983 you were again 
notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of 
misconduct due to drug abuse.  At that time you were advised that 
the characterization of your service could be under other than 
honorable conditions.  Again, you waived your rights to consult 
with legal counsel and to present your case to an ADB.  On 21 
December 1983 your commanding officer recommended you be 
separated under okher than honorable conditions due to drug 
abuse.  The recommendation noted, in part, as follows: 

A1 though his service to the command has brought him credit, 
those instances of misconduct resulting in NJP have marred 
his record and his drug abuse has not been conductive to 
good order and discipline.  Counselling requirements were 
met after his first drug abuse incident.  His second  (drug 
abuse) incident, eight months later, demonstrates his 
failure to support Navy policy. 

On 3 January 1984 the discharge authority approved the foregoing 
recommendation and directed an other than honorable discharge by 
reason of misconduct.  On 13 January 1984 you were so discharged. 

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, 
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as 
your youth and immaturity and good post service conduct.  The 
Board also considered your many character reference letters, 
performance evaluation, reference list, certificates, and awards. 
However, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to 
wil-~,nt ~~;!laracterization of your discharge because of the two 
NJPs and the serious nature of your drug related misconduct. 
Given all the circumstances of your case, the Board concluded 
your 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 material 
evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board. 
In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a 

p r e s u m p t i o n   o f   r e g u l a r i t y   a t t a c h e s   t o   a l l   o f f i c i a l   records. 
C o n ~ e . . r i : = r t ? - ~ ,  w h e n   xrrlying  f o r   a  c o r r e c t i o n   of  a n   o f f i c i a l   n a v a l  
r e c o r d ,   t h e   b u r d e n   i s   o n   t h e   a p p l i c a n t   t o  d e m o n s t r a t e   t h e  
e x i s t e n c e   o f   p r o b a b l e   m a t e r i a l   e r r o r   o r   i n j u s t i c e .  

S i n c e r e l y ,  

W .   DEAN  PFEIFFER 
E x e c u t i v e   D i r e c t o r  



Similar Decisions

  • AF | DRB | CY2004 | FD2004-00141

    Original file (FD2004-00141.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ISSUES: Applicant was recommended for discharge based on both drug abuse and misconduct; the records indicated the applicant received five Letters of Counseling (LOCs) for being late to work, and a commander- directed urinalysis was returned positive for the presence of cocaine. Member exercised his right to an administrative discharge board and the board found that member was late to work five times and did wrongfully use cocaine. SrA-(APR Indicates): 14 Jun 85-21 Dec 85.

  • AF | DRB | CY2006 | FD2005-00319

    Original file (FD2005-00319.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The records indicated thc applicant received an Article 15 for misconduct. I am recommending your discharge f r o m t h e United S t a t e s Air Force f o r drug abuse according t o AFR 39-10, under t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f paragraphs 5-49d and 5- 50.1. Present your case t o an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e discharge board; c ; Be represented by l e g a l counsel a t a board hearing; d, Submit statements the board hearing; i n your own behalf i n a d d i t i o n t o , o r i n l f e u o f , e .

  • AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD2001-0232

    Original file (FD2001-0232.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Further, t h e respondent was advised o f the r i g h t s t o a hearing before an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e discharge board, t o consult and be represen- t e d by counsel, t o submit statements i n a d d i t i o n t o o r i n 1 i e u o f board hearing, o r t o waive any o f these r j g h t s . The record o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e discharge board and t h e case f i l e contain no e r r o r s o r i r r e g u l a r i t i e s p r e j u d i c i a l t o t h e respondent's r i g h t...

  • AF | DRB | CY2006 | FD2005-00388

    Original file (FD2005-00388.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MY DISCHARGE WAS UNJUST BECAUSE MY CASE WAS NOT lHOROUC3HL.Y REVIEWED BY MY COMMANDER 7. Prior to the initiation of my discharge, I was told I would remain in the United States Air Force after my Commander passed judgment My Commander did not take any stripes away h m me, but she did suspend a stripe until 7 December 2005, and gave me fifteen days of extra duty. I am recommending your discharge from the United States Air Force for drug abuse, specifically, Vicodin.

  • AF | DRB | CY2007 | FD2006-00307

    Original file (FD2006-00307.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIKS'I' MIDDLE INI'I'IAL) CKADE AFSNISSAN AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - a I TYPE GEN 1 Y E S C o L ~ S E ~ n 1 NAME O F COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION PERSONAL APPEARANCE AB I X RECORDREVIEW ADDRESS AND OR ORGANI%A'l'ION O F C'CIIINSEI I 1 I MEMBER S I T T I N G I I HON I GEN VOTE OF THE BOARD I UOTHC I OTHER I DENY 1NL)ES NUMBER A66.00 1 CASENUMBER EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD 1 I ORDER...

  • AF | DRB | CY2005 | FD2004-00456

    Original file (FD2004-00456.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    g. Record of SV: 1 Feb 89 - 30 Sep 89 Norton AFB 2 (1nitial)REF h. Awards & Decs : AFTR. I am recommending y o u r discharge from t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s A i r Force f o r drug use. I have made an appointment f o r you t o c o n s u l t t h e Area Defense Counsel, b l d g 538, room 937, on 2 Oct 89 a t 1530 hours.

  • AF | DRB | CY2001 | FD01-00034

    Original file (FD01-00034.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    4 AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE CASE NUMBER FD-01-00034 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable. Records review revealed that the applicant received an Article 15 for wronghlly using marijuana on or about April 30, 1985 and a second Article 15 for failure to obey a lawhl order while in correctional custody. Today I have prescribe medication Also, there is a letter from my therapist Dr. ------ Please - ATCH 1.

  • AF | DRB | CY2007 | FD2005-00416

    Original file (FD2005-00416.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (1,AST. The records also show that the member was offered an administrative discharge board but waived his right to a hearing. Article 15, dated 14 Jan 05 w/ attachments

  • AF | DRB | CY2007 | FD2006-00406

    Original file (FD2006-00406.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (Change Discharge to Honorable) Issues: My discharge was inequitable because it was an isolated incident. SERVICE UNDER REVIEW: a. Enlisted as AB 91/07/17 for 4 yrs. Copies of t h e documents t o be forwarded t o t h e separation a u t h o r i t y i n support o f t h i s recommendation a r e attached.

  • AF | DRB | CY2001 | FD01-00043

    Original file (FD01-00043.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honor&e:- CASE NUMBER FDO1-00043 I . Two SSgt's and 1 Sgt., whose statements were submitted but not Issue 7: M y command abused it's authority when it decided to discharge me I was told by my commanding lieutenant an decided' to give me a bad discharge. I am recommending your discharge from the United States Air Force for Misconduct - - Minor Disciplinary Infractions.