DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

Y

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

Docket 

10 September 

AEG
#6979-00
2001

Mr.mb

The Board also considered the advisory opinion
a copy of which is attached.

Dear 
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
Your allegations of error and
application on 5 September 2001.
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.
furnished by the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General for
Criminal Law, dated 15 May 2001,
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 first enlisted in the Navy in September
1978.
excellent to outstanding manner.
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) in 1979 and 1983, these were your
only 
received no mark below 4.0.
warfare specialist in 1992 and were advanced to chief data
systems technician (DSC; E-7) in 1993.
last time,
awarded the 
performance cf duty.
SAIPAN 
manner.
On 7 June and 25 July 1996 a Navy drug laboratory reported that a
urine sample you submitted on or about 17 May 1996 had tested
positive for the presence of cocaine.
following a retest of the sample produced an identical result, on

In 1995 you were
Shortly thereafter, you reported to USS
(LHA-2), where you continued to perform in an excellent

fclr six years, on 15 July 1994.
fiavy Marine Corps Achievement Medal for outstanding

discipli.nary actions of record.

Between 1987 and 1995, you
You qualified as an enlisted surface

During the next 18 years, you served in a generally

Although you received

You reenlisted for the

On 5 August 1996,

existi.ng  divisions, CSE and CSF.

It appears that as a

19516 NJP action was initiated for wrongful use of

tkle reorganization CSE had between 20 and 28 members
yocr new division, increased to 16-20 members.

5 August 
112a of the Uniform Code of
cocaine, in violation of Article 
On 17 September 1996 the commanding
Military Justice (UCMJ).
officer (CO) of SAIPAN dismissed the charge after you claimed
irregularities in the urine sample collection procedures.
However, you received a letter of caution due to your failure to
bring those discrepancies to the attention of the command in a
timely manner.
Sometime in early 1997, SAIPAN underwent an internal
reorganizati.on  resulting in the abolition of the CSD division, of
which you were a member.
Its members were then reassigned to two
other 
result of 
and CSF, 
On 17 March 1997 you submitted a urine sample as part of a
urinalysis conducted aboard SAIPAN.
Document-Urine Testing (DD Form 2624) reflects that the test
basis was 
Navy drug laboratory reported that your sample had tested
positive for cocaine.
referred a charge of wrongful use of cocaine to a summary court
martial (SCM).
At that time, the summary court officer aboard
SAIPAN was
by SCM, whereupon the CO referred the charge to a special 
martial 
specification of cocaine use he initially dismissed in September
1996.
During 
(CAPT; O-6) S, was assisting your military defense counsel, LT H.
In preparation for trial,
Electronics Technician (ETCS;
St.C and Master-at-Arms First
Class 
In a sworn declaration
of 12 June 1997 CAPT C related, in part, as follows an interview
with MA1 V:

early, June 1997 a Naval Reserve judge advocate, Captain

However, you refused trial
court-

(SPCM) .

Subsequently, the CO also referred the

IcIU", a unit sweep.

On 14 April 1997 the servicing

Accordingly, on 28 April 1997 the CO

t. Lieutenant (LT; O-3) T.

The Specimen.Custody

(MAl; E-6) V concerning your case.

CAPT C interviewed Senior Chief

E-8) 

He has been assigned to the USS SAIPAN for about one year,
where he is the leading petty officer in the 
(master-
at-arms) shop.

MAA 

He serves as the Urinalysis Coordinator aboard SAIPAN.
duties as coordinator include operation of a Navy computer
*NNDSP,lt which stands for Navy Drug
program known as  
Screening Program.
select either individuals from throughout the ship's
company for urinalysis screening,
divisions for all their personnel to give urine samples.

Using this program, he can randomly

or he can randomly select

His

2

SAIPAIJ.

E-9) (D) is the head 

Most of the drug screening is done by divisions.

MAA
MACM (D) informs MA1 (V) as coordinator of how
div:.sions are to be screened on a particular day, and
MAI (V)

Drug screening on SAIPAN is usually done on Mondays and
Fridays.
A division is randomly selected by the computer program,
and all personnel form that division who are present that
However, some drug screening
day must give a urine sample.
is done by drawing samples from throughout the ship's
MA1 (V) believes this feature of the NDSP program
company.
selects personnel based upon whether a particular randomly
selected digit appears in their social security number. MA1
estimates  that at least over 55% of drug screening on
(V) 
SAIPAN is done by randomly selected divisions, rather than
by 
randonly selected individuals.
MACM (Master-at-Arms Master Chief;
on 
many 
MA1 (V) operates the NDSP to select the divisions.
does not know how MACM (D) determines how many divisions
are to be screened on a given day.
However, that number
has always been between one and three as long as MA1 (V)
has been aboard SAIPAN.
. . .
MA1 (V) recalls
He specifically
selected by the
recal:_s this
He 
CSE division came to the 
CSD division did not exist anymore, so it should not have
been selected for urinalysis.
directed his complaint to MAC (M), who moved the discussion
with 
discussion, he recalls MAC (Chief Master-at-Arms; E-7) (M)
returning to the office and informing him that only CSF
division members, and not CSE division members, would have
to provide samples.
"Let's 
S's 

do CSF because 
dec:laration pertaining to what ETCS 

ETC!; (St.C) into the passageway. After that

a urinalysis screening on March 17, 1997.
recalls that the 
NDSP computer program, which he operated.
particular screening because ETCS  

(St.C) of
MAA office and complained that the

I'CSD" division was

_

He recalls ETCS (St.C)

He believes MAC 
it's smaller."

(M's) exact words were

St.C told him reads,

CAPT 
in part, as follows:

ETCS (St.C) is currently assigned to the CSE division
aboard 
Previously, he was part of the CSD
division.

USS SAIPAN.

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.
Because the CSD division no longer existed, LT (G) said

3

"this is

MAA

(St#C) thought it unnecessary that the ship's 

(St.C) stated that he expressed his objections to LT

every member of both the CSE and CSF divisions, which
absorbed all of the CSD personnel, would have to give a
ETCS (St.C) recalls he told LT (G) 
urine sample.
bullshit," or words to that effect.
ETCS 
office would select a division that no longer existed, and
then inconvenience all the personnel of the two divisions
which absorbed the members of the old division having to
give urine samples. If this procedure were followed, it
would result in approximately three times as many urine
samples as the previous CSD would have produced.
ETCS 
(G) about both CSE and CSF having to give samples. LT (G)
told him to
that effect.
ETCS 
by taking his complaint to MAC (M).
the 
existed, and it was a waste of time collecting urinalysis
samples 
from both CSE and CSF.
samples 
from either CSE or CSF would be acceptable, and
whichever division was smaller should provide the samples.
ETCS 
(StC) believes this conversation could have occurred
in the passageway outside the 
MAA offices, because other
MAA force personnel were working in the office spaces.
After concluding his discussion with MAC
MAA office, whereupon he immediately
the 
MAA
you) 
-
division"

(St,(Z) acknowledged that he next 
MAA office spaces and told him that CSD no longer

r he departed
W  
ran into (DSC G;
wants your

He informed DSC (G) that 

"the 

"do it that way just one more time" or words to

t'went around" LT (G),
He located MAC (M) in

MAC (M) replied that urine

Based on the foregoing, LT H filed a motion
which she argued as follows for suppression
obtained as a result of your 17 March 1997 urine sample:

on 18 June 1997 in
of all evidence

*'an examination of the whole or part of a

Pursuant to M.R.E. (Military Rule of Evidence) 313(b), an
inspection is
unit, conducted as incident of command, the primary purpose
of which is to determine and to ensure the security,
military fitness, or good order and discipline of the
unit."
that personnel are fit and ready for duty as well as to
locate and eliminate contraband.
It is under this guise
that inspections include random sample and unit sweep
urinalys:is  testing.

One of the purposes of an inspection is to ensure

The courts have long held that to be admissible as the
result 
for a legitimate purpose and conducted in a lawful manner.
(citations omitted)

032 an inspection, urinalysis testing must be ordered

As M.R.E. 313(b) explains, a

4

rule."

. . 

. If a specific

This

M.R.E.

:_n disciplinary proceedings.

This test, however, does not

The command selects divisions

"for the primary purpose of obtaining

urinalysis conducted
evidence for use in a trial by court-martial or in other
disciplinary proceedings is not an inspection within the
Furthermore, if the purpose of an
meaning of this  
inspection is to locate contraband, specific individuals
may not be selected for testing 
individual is selected for examination, the burden then
rests on the government to establish by clear and
convincing evidence that the exam was actually an
inspection within the meaning of M.R.E. 313. (citation
omitted)
313 is reinforced by OPNAVINST (Chief of
5350.4B, which delineates the
Naval Operations Instruction)  
Navy's drug testing policy and the admissibility of test
results 
The Instruction notes
that the only type of drug urinalysis results which are
admissib1.e  for disciplinary proceedings are those obtained
by (1) search and seizure, (2) inspection, (3) medical
treatment, (4) accession training, and (5) brig and
overseas screenings.
In this case, the government contends that the urinalysis
test that DSC (G) submitted to on 17 March 1997 was a valid
random sample inspection.
meet the necessary criteria.
to provide the samples via the NDSP computer program.
program, however, did not produce a random sample on 17
March 1997.
Instead, the Command incorrectly included a
non-existent division, CSD, in the pool of samples. In
actualitll, CSD had been dissolved and absorbed by CSE and
CSF divisions.
Therefore, personnel of the former CSD had
twice the probability of their shipmates of being selected
for screening because both their previous division and
their new division were in the pool of possible computer
selections.
When the NDSP computer program selected the non-existent
CSD division for sampling,
have been disregarded.
CSD should have been removed from
the pool and another random sample taken under the revised
program.
Instead, MAC (M), at the urging of ETCS (St.C),
1:o let the invalid selection stand but to modify it
decided 
to apply only to DSC (G's) new division.
ETCS (St.C) has
absolutely no command authority to influence the nature of
a urinalysis test, and, in fact, is the senior enlisted
member in CSE, the other portion of the selected CSD
This decision was made with the knowledge that
division.
DSC (G) had tested positive in a previous urinalysis and
that the earlier result had been dismissed at NJP.
ETCS
(St.C) then confirmed these events by discussing the
situation with DSCS (Data Systems Senior Chief; E-8) (S),
DSC (W), and DSC (G), where he nodded in acknowledgment of
DSC 
because he was a member of that division.

(G's11 accusation that CSF had only been selected

that selection simply should

5

DSC 

Under these circumstances,
obtained under circumstances amounting to command direction
rather than random selection.
cause for such command direction, the results of the
urinalysis must be suppressed.
H's 

(G's) urine sample was
In the absence of probable

motic'n was never litigated because one day after it was

After you elected to have the case

At that time, you were advised that if separation

by. the positive urinalysis results of May 1996 and

LT 
filed, the C'O, SAIPAN, dismissed the charges against you.
However, on 24 June 1997 the CO initiated administrative
separation action by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse, as
evidenced 
March 1997.
was approved., characterization could be under other than
honorable conditions (UOTHC).
heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), the CO
appointed a three-member ADB which included LT T, 
summary court-officer.
Your ADB convened on 7 July 1997.
members, neither the recorder nor LT H challenged any member for
cause.
positive urinalyses;
your naval 
suppress.
LT H then presented testimony from the weapons officer and one of
your subordinates, both of whom attested to your fine performance
of duty.
essentially echoed this testimony and, when asked about the
urinalysis 

DSCS D, in charge of weapons aboard SAIPAN, then
of 17 March 1997, he stated as follows:

The recorder then introduced evidence pertaining to your

c:areer, the declarations of CAPT S, and her motion to

and LT H introduced evidence documenting

After questioning the ADB

SAIPAN's

['DSC G).

St.C) said.

I do not know that (ETCS 

I specifically remember (DSC G) making the statement that
the decision was made to test CSF because he was in the
division, but I don't remember the exact words. I do not
remember what (ETCS 
(DSC G).
St.C) had any grudge
against 
had fewer people in it and it presented less of an
administrative burden for the 
circumstances of the first urinalysis, I think there was a
little bad blood left over.
situation came about because of the first urinalysis,
something seemed fishy.
of this, but I do feel (DSC G) was targeted.

My memory was focused on
I feel my division was picked because it
. Due to the entire

I have absolutely no solid proof

I am afraid that the second

MAA 

. . 

Your wife then testified that both of you lived with three sons,
her mother and her three brothers; and she also said that her
brothers all. sold drugs in the neighborhood.
they did not do so in their house,
lj.ked your kids to be around drugs.
drugs nor 
You then testified under oath and speculated that one of your
Concerning
wife's brothers might have put drugs in your food.
the urinalysis of 17 March 1997,

and that you neither used

you testified as follows:

However, she said

6

\

They pulled me in and said that CSD had to provide.
ETCS
MAA and see what

I had been TAD (temporary additional duty) for almost a
month.
At that time, CSD had been dissolved as a division.
(St.C) said that he would go talk to the 
He said that CSF would provide. I
they wanted to do.
heard through (ETCS St.C) that they wanted the division
When I heard that, I said he wants
DS's.
that had the 
whatever division I am in.
However, he denies that he did it
just nodded his head.
. 

I looked at (ETCS St.C) and he

.
. . 

. 

. I have no idea why I popped positive 
Testifying in rebuttal for the government, ETCS 
in part, as follows:

St.C testified,

I went to the 

then CSD no longer existed, but there was CSE and CSF.

I did not tell (DSC G) that CSF was picked because he was
My department head told me that CSD had
in the division.
MAA's and
(been selected) for urinalysis.
told 
CMAA asked me which one absorbed most of the people from
CSD and I told him CSF.
There are some serious errors with the motion presented at
'I'he primary problems were that CSF was not selected
trial.
I did not nod to affirm that
because (DSC G) was in it;
and I did not give any indication
this allegation was true;
MAA's what division (DSC G) was in, but I
at all 
simply informed them that CSD did not exist.

At that time CSF was selected.

tcl the 

MA1 V then testified for the government and characterized the
urinalysis 
stated as follows concerning the method used to select units for
testing:

of 17 March 1997 as a 

"sub unit sweep."

He then

On this particular day,

I use the
There are several ways to select the units.
computer program to test randomly and under (sic) unit
sweeps.
of a box by the 
I was in the office when ETCS (St.C) came down and said CSD
had been resolved; from there he began to talk with the
CMAA, (after) which the CMAA came to me and told me we were
going to do CSF.

the units were picked out
X0 (executive officer) at officers' call.

MACM D then testified for the government as follows:

. 

. On the morning we drew units for testing, I had a box
. 
with each one cut up into single sheets, shook it up, held
it above my head and the 
about one hour later following a meeting that the CMAA
informed me of the problem.
and informed him of the situation.
the bulk of personnel from CSD went into CSF.
time, the 
returned to the 
doing 

X0 made the decision to test CSF.
CSF 

It was
I immediately went to the 

MAA Office and told the CMAA we would be

X0 made the selections.

I explained to him that

At that

I then

X0

. 

. 

.

7

Upon reopening, the senior member announced

After the recorder and LT H made final arguments, the ADB closed
for deliberations.
findings that you had not committed misconduct due to drug abuse
Accordingly,
in 1996, but had committed such misconduct in 1997.
the ADB recommended discharge UOTHC.
On 9 July 1997 the CO forwarded the case to the Chief of Naval
Personnel (CNP), concurring in the finding of misconduct and the
In his letter of that date,
recommendation for discharge UOTHC.
the CO noted that LT H had not yet filed a letter of deficiency
or asked for an extension of time to do so.
On 11 July 1997 LT H submitted her letter of deficiency to CNP.
After reciting the basic facts of the case, she attempted to
clarify as follows the procedure used aboard SAIPAN to select
units and individuals for urinalysis:

. 

this system was altered to

. Initially, the USS SAIPAN conducted urinalysis

. 
inspections by randomly selecting a number between 1 and 9
and then calling all individuals with that digit in a
particular position in their social security number.
Sometime  prior to March 1997,
instead randomly select a number of divisions and then have
everyone within that division provide a sample.
systems were designed to be random sample inspections, one
simply used social security numbers and the other
a random drawing was made
divisions.
from a hat to select either the social security digit or
the division.
computer system that pulled up all of the individuals with
the 
applicable division.
If the method of selection involved a
random drawing of several divisions, the computer program
automatically labeled that test as a unit sweep, despite
the fact that the test was actually a random sample.

This information was then fed into a
apprcpriate social security number or within the

Under either system,

Both

. 

. On 17 March 1997 DSC (G) supplied a urine sample to
. 
USS SAIPAN pursuant to what was purported to be a random
t'divisior'* sample drug screening. On this date, the  
(X0)
drew 2 divisions from a hat.
One of those divisions was
CSD.
of its personnel were reassigned to either CSE or CSF  

Several months earlier CSD had been dissolved and all
.
. . 

St.C was unable to persuade LT

LT H then asserted that after ETCS 
G that not everyone in CSE and CSF should provide a urine sample,
the senior chief did an 
LT H also stated that
only CSF members should provide samples.
St.C and MAC M knew that you were a member of CSF and
both ETCS 
had a prior positive urinalysis,
procedures aboard SAIPAN.
LT H then argued as follows:

"end around" and convinced MAC M that

and questioned the urinalysis

8

. 

Per OPNAVINST 5350.48, the Only 

In essence, the Command is now attempting

evenif, in fact, the test was intended as a

. Given the method by which this test was conducted,
. 
DSC (G) asserts that this urinalysis failed to meet the
criteria necessary to utilize the results to characterize
tests
service as (UOTHC).
which can be used to characterize service as (UOTHC) are
(2) inspections, (3) medical
(1) search and seizure tests,
tests, (4) rehabilitation tests, and (5) accession tests.
The results of any other type of test may not be used to
characterize service.
In this case, the command alleges that this test was an
All interviewed witnesses, including those
inspection.
conducting the urinalysis program claimed that the test was
MA1 (V) noted in
designed to be a random division sample.
his testimony that the computer automatically assigns the
"IU** for Unit Sweep, any time the sampling covers
notation 
MA1 (V) agreed that this designation
an entire division.
would occur 
random sample, drawn by division rather than social
security number.
to re-classify what everyone understood to be a random
so as to justify a lack of
inspection as a unit sweep,
randomness in the test selection.
unjust.
Those members
Additionally, this test was far from random.
in CSD actually had twice the probability of everyone else
on the ship of being selected  
Furthermcre, the error of drawing a non-existent division
was easily rectified.
After all, even CSE
second division to provide samples.
and CSF could have been selected as they were both still
remaining in the hat.
X0 would not have
possibility, MACM (D) responded that the 
wanted tc redraw because he head already announced which
divisions were going to provide samples, and he likes for
everyone to see and understand the urinalysis system so
that they know it is'fair.
occurred in the absence of simply redrawing is probably
exactly the appearance of impropriety the  
(X0) sought to
avoid.
Finally, the Department Head, LT (G) specifically
instructed ETCS (St.C) that everyone in both CSE and CSF
ETCS (St.C), however, chose to
would 
ignore his superior and instead approached MAC (M) about
(St.C) then determined
the situation.
ETCS
which division needed to provide a sample that day.
(St.C) had absolutely no authority to be involved in these
appearance-of bias could exist than
What worse
decisions.
urinalysis program to approach the
for an outsider to the
to adjust the results of who needed
Urinalysis Coordinator
to provide a sample?

The 

(X0) could simply have redrawn a

prcvide samples.

MAC (M) and ETCS 

Such actions are clearly

-for urinalysis.

When questioned about this

Unfortunately, the events which

9

the very least unfair,

The CO endorsed LT 
contentions of error were raised at the ADB and were taken into
account by the ADB in arriving at its findings and
recommendations.

H's letter on 24 July 1997 and stated that her

The CO then stated as follows:

H's) letter is MACM 

Omitted from (LT 
the urinalysis used as the basis for separation was
As such,
ultimately a unit sweep ordered by the (X0).
there was sufficient evidence to find that, contrary to the
position taken by (LT H) at the (ADB), the actual test
premise was a unit sweep within the meaning of OPNAVINST
5350.4B.

(D's) testimony that

The record

H's

3640350.5d(6)  stated that an ADB member could be

3640350.4a of the Naval Military
**well qualified by reason of grade,

CO's assertion, rejected LT 
discharqed on 14 October 1997, after

It appears that CNP accepted the 
contentions and directed your discharge UOTHC.
reflects that  you were so 
about 19 years-and one month of active service.
The Board considered your contention that it was improper,or at
for LT T to sit on your ADB because he had
been previously detailed as a SCM to try you on the charge of
using cocaine in 1997.
In support of this contention, you and
your counsel allege that in this capacity, LT T would have acted
as a prosecutor; he had reviewed an investigation and other
documentation pertaining to that charge before you refused trial
by SCM; and he spoke with the legal officer concerning the
The qualifications for membership on an
allegation against you.
ADB were set forth in Article 
Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN), which stated that officers
appointed to an ADB should be
leadership experience and judicious temperament."
MILPERSMAN
Article 
**challenged for cause only.**
T's
The Board concluded that LT 
status as summary court officer did not disqualify him from
sitting on your ADB or render him subject to a challenge for
cause.
Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 1301(b) states that the function of
the SCM, the summary court-officer,
offenses under a simple procedure 
impartially inquire into both sides of the matter and 
.ensure
that the interests of both the government and the accused are
Accordingly, this officer
safeguarded and that justice is 
serves as a defense counsel as much as he does a prosecutor, but
primarily serves as a fact-finder.
acted as a fact-finder had you elected trial by SCM did not
disqualify him from serving in that role at your ADB.
Additionally, RCM 1304(a) requires the SCM, before trial, to
**carefully examine** relevant paperwork, to include reports of
investigation, witness statements and other correspondence.
Accordingly, it would have been appropriate for LT T to review
certain documentation concerning your case, and you do not
indicate how his review of such material might have been

is to **adjudicate minor
. . 
. . 

. thoroughly and

done."

Just because he would have

10

You also provide no substantiation for your

ADB*s finding was

Clearly, there was ample

ADB*s finding of drug use.

H's 11 July 1997 letter of deficiency.

urirle samples were collected as a random urinalysis or

y'ou committed misconduct due to drug abuse.

prejudicial.
Finally, and
contention that LT T spoke with the legal officer.
arguably most important, your military counsel, LT H, questioned
LT T during the preliminary phase of the ADB and declined to
challenge him for cause.
The Board also rejected the contention that the ADB improperly
found that you had used cocaine.
You tested
evidence to support the 
positive for cocaine use on the March 1997 urinalysis, and have
submitted no evidence to show that the command failed to follow
the urine sample collection procedures set forth in Appendix B of
or that the drug laboratory
Enclosure (4) to OPNAVINST 5350.4,
The Board also noted that
improperly tested your urine sample.
in accordance with MILPERSMAN Article  
3640350.5f(2),  the standard
Of proof at an ADB was not beyond a reasonable doubt but only a
preponderance of the evidence.
In support
c'f your contention that the 
improper,
you allege that although the March 1997 collection of
urine samples was deemed to be either a random or unit sweep
urinalysis, it was neither, essentially for the reasons set forth
However, whether or
in LT 
not the 
unit sweep is irrelevant on the issue of whether the ADB properly
In this
found that 
regard, MILPERSMAN Article 3640350.5~ stated that any relevant
Even if the
and competent evidence could be admitted at an ADB.
1997 urinalysis did not qualify as random or a unit sweep, the
positive result certainly was relevant and could be introduced in
evidence to show that you had used cocaine.
Whether the 1997 evolution met the requirements for a random or
unit sweep urinalysis is relevant on the characterization of your
5350.4B stated that
service as UOTHC.
random and unit sweep urinalyses are considered **inspections**
under MRE 33.3 and could be utilized for the purpose of
characterizing service.
for such a purpose.
neither random nor a unit sweep,
However, the Board
not be used to characterize your service.
agreed with the advisory opinion that the 1997 urinalysis
constituted an inspection and, therefore, it could be used to
In this regard, the Board noted your
characterize your service.
contention that CSF division was selected only because you were a
However, every individual who testified
member of that division.
at the ADB on this issue, except you, denied this was the case
Even he admitted he had no proof that the
except for 
division was selected for this reason, but only said that he had
The Board therefore
**a feeling** that you had been targeted.
agreed that CSF was not selected as a pretext to gather evidence
against you by requiring you to submit a urine sample.
Additionally, although there was a degree of non-compliance with
the selection procedure set forth in paragraph 3d of USS SAIPAN

Certain other urinalyses may not be used
a case can be made that it could

Enclosure (4) to OPNAVINST 

Accordingly, if the 1997 urinalysis was

DSCS D.

11

the Board determined this was a

Consequently, since the 1997 urinalysis was

Instruction 
5355.1F for determining which divisions would
participate in the urinalysis,
minor deviation from the stated policy and not a serious
violation.
accomplished. as an incident of command and was not undertaken in
order to obtain evidence against you,
this urinalysis constituted
an inspection and the results could be used to characterize your
service.
Based on the: foregoing, the Board could find no justification to
d.erogatory  material form your record, reinstate you in
remove any 
the Navy,
uplgrade your discharge, or change the reenlistment
code.
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.
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.

Accor,dingly,  your application has been denied.

You are entitled to have the

Sincerely,

Executive D

Enclosure

12