DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

CRS
Docket No: 651-99
23 February 2001

Your allegations of error and

Dear
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to &he 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 10 January 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.
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 enlisted in the Navy on 7 May 1985 at
age 19.
preliminary evaluation from a counseling and assistance center
(CAAC) stated that you appeared to be alcohol dependent and
should be scheduled for in-patient treatment.
However, the
record does not indicate that any such treatment was 
provi,ded.
The record reflects that on 18 June 1986, you were returned to
your ship in an intoxicated condition with a laceration to'your
chin.
authorities of urinating in public.
fine of $10 and court costs of $20.
nonjudicial punishments, on 20 March and 21 July 1987.
offenses included unauthorized absences totalling more than five
days, resisting apprehension, assault,
and drunk and disorderly
On 11 June 1987 you were again convicted by civil
conduct.
authorities of disorderly conduct and hitchhiking on a city
street.
The court sentenced you to a fine of $145 and court
costs of $40.

The court sentenced you to a
You then received two
The

You served without incident until February 1986, when a

On 20 February 1987 you were convicted by civil

Input for such an

On 30 August 1988, after testing positive in a urinalysis, you
received a third nonjudicial punishment for use of marijuana. On
23 September 1988 you were found not to be dependent on drugs,
but were recommended for professional counseling.
Also on 23 September 1988 an administrative discharge board
recommended that you be separated with a general discharge by
reason of misconduct due to drug abuse and commission of a
serious offense.
After review by the discharge authority, the
recommendation for separation was approved and you received a
general discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse on 9
January 1989.
At that time you were assigned a reenlistment code
of RE-4.
The regulation in effect at the time of your discharge, OPNAVINST
5350.4, offered broad command guidelines for evaluation covering
such areas of whether or not the member was considered alcohol
dependent, whether assistance beyond the capabilities of the ship
was required, and whether to separate.
evaluation could come from the "substance abuse coordinator,
medical officer evaluation, CAAC recommendation, NASAP/NDSAP
recommendation, chaplains in designated billets at drug and
alcohol program field activities."
In your case, the evaluation
was performed by a CAAC counselor.
In all cases involving a
member's alcohol dependency,
the commanding officer was required
to obtain a medical officer's confirmation before making his
final decision.
Although there is no evidence in the record, the
Board concluded that the medical officer disagreed with 
recommendation for in-patient treatment.
The regulation now in effect,
about handling of possible alcohol dependency in that the
commanding officer will be provided with a screening summary.
The commanding officer shall,
in all but exceptional cases,
follow the recommendations of the screening summary.
Personnel
who did not carry out the strict instructions of the regulation
will be subject to disciplinary action.
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors,
should have received the treatment recommended in the medical
evaluation of February 1986,
and would have received an honorable
discharge if current policies and procedures on alcohol abuse and
alcohol rehabilitation were in effect at the time of your
discharge.
However, the Board concluded that these factors were
not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge or
change the reason for discharge,
convictions, three nonjudicial punishments, and the involvement
with drugs.
concerning current regulations.
The reality of the situation is
that alcohol abuse was treated somewhat differently at the time
of your discharge and current standards do not apply.
The Board

given the two civil court
In this regard, the Board notes the argument

such as the contention that you

CAAC's

OPNAVINST 

5350.4(3, is very specific

2

However, this is pure speculation on

noted your statement to the effect that if you had completed
alcohol rehabilitation, you would not have committed any
disciplinary infractions.
your part.
The Board also noted that any failue to provide treatment
pertained to your problem with alcohol abuse.
However, you were
discharged by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse and not
alcohol abuse or misconduct pertaining to such abuse.
Finally,
the effects of any failure to provide rehabilitation were
ameliorated when you received a general discharge instead of the
discharge under other than honorable conditions normally-issued
to an individual discharged by reason of misconduct.
record of two civil convictions and three nonjudicial
punishments, you were extremely fortunate to receive this more
favorable characterization.
Applicable regulations require the assignment of an RE-4
reenlistment code when an individual is discharged due to
misconduct.
In this regard, the Board noted that the record
clearly indicates that you committed misconduct by using drugs.
Since you have been treated no differently than others in your
situation, the Board could not find an error or injustice in the
assignment of your reenlistment code.
Concerning your discussion of the Naval Discharge Review Board
(NDRB) and its decision in your case, the Board did not involve
itself in the comments about NDRB.
For example, Title 32, Code
of Federal Regulations, Section 724.903 which you cite, applies
to discharge review by NDRB, and not to this Board.
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
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.

Given your

The names and

Sincerely,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

3