Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08088-01
Original file (08088-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  N A V Y  

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  

ELP 
Docket No.  8088-01 
19 April  2002 

Dear Mr. Costner: 

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 Navy Records, 
sitting in executive session, considered your application on 
17 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 enlisted  in the Navy on 28 July 1997 for four years at age 
18.  The record  reflects that you were advanced to SN  (E-3) and 
served without  incident until 27 October  1998 when a Navy drug 
laboratory reported  that your urine sample received on 21 October 
1998 had tested positive for amphetamines/methampheatmines.  On 
29 October 1998 you received nonjudicial punishment  (NJP) for use 
of a controlled substance.  Punishment imposed consisted of a 
reduction in rate to SA  (E-2), forfeitures of one-half of one 
month's  pay for two months, and 45 days of restriction and extra 
duty. 

On  16 November 1998 you were notified that administrative 
separation action was being initiated by reason of misconduct due 
to drug abuse.  You were advised of your procedural rights and 
told that if discharge was approved, it could be under other than 
honorable conditions.  You declined  to consult with legal counsel 
or submit a statement in your own behalf, and waived  the right to 

present your case to an administrative discharge board  (ADB). 
Thereafter, the commanding officer recommended discharge under 
other than honorable conditions.  On 25 November 1998, the 
discharge authority directed discharge under other than honorable 
conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.  You were 
so discharged on 30 November 1998. 

On 16 June 2000 the Naval Discharge Review Board  (NDRB) denied 
your request for an upgrade of the discharge.  You told the NDRB 
that you were wrong to become involved with drugs, but youth, 
inexperience, and easy access to drugs were contributing factors. 

In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all 
potentially mitigating factors such as your youth and immaturity 
and the other issues you presented to the NDRB.  Your current 
contention is that one of your shipmates fooled you into taking 
illegal drugs is neither supported by the evidence of record nor 
by any evidence in support of your application.  Further, this 
contention is quite different from what you told the NDRB.  You 
also claim that since your appeal to the NDRB, you have completed 
your associates degree.  However, you provide no evidence 
supporting evidence.  The Board concluded that the foregoing 
factors and contentions were insufficient to warrant 
recharacterization of your discharge given your use of a 
controlled substance in violation of the Navy's  policy of zero 
tolerance.  The Board concluded that the 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 
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 | 06854-01

    Original file (06854-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 March 2002. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07617-02

    Original file (07617-02.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 May 2003. 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. On 28 August 1983 the discharge authority then directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse, and on 30 August...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00243-01

    Original file (00243-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 April 2001. The Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your disciplinary record, marginal performance and especially your admission of marijuana use before and after you entered the Marine Corps. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00312-02

    Original file (00312-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 March 2002. Subsequently, you tested positive for marijuana on two random urinalyses of 22 June and 2 August 1983. 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 | 00160-02

    Original file (00160-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 May 2002. Although the documents concerning your separation processing are not available in your records, it is clear that you were separated after you were offered and refused alcohol rehabilitation treatment, as indicated in your statements. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 06134-00

    Original file (06134-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2002 | 10392-02

    Original file (10392-02.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. An average of 3.0 in conduct was required at the time of your separation for a fully honorable characterization of service. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is existence of probable on the applicant to demonstrate the material error or...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05595-01

    Original file (05595-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 . 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 | CY2001 | 08111-01

    Original file (08111-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 May 2002. 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 | CY2001 | 07253-01

    Original file (07253-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 April 2002. However, on 18 January 1985, the discharge authority directed your commanding officer to administratively reprocess you for separation by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse and commission of a serious offense, and to afford you the right to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 4 March 1985 an ADB recommended you be...