DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
NAVY
ANNEX
2
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
S
ELP
Docket No. 6772-01
11 February 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.
Your allegations of error and injustice were
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records,
sitting in executive session,
6 February 2002.
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.
considered your application on
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.
Your enlisted in the Marine Corps on 7 January 1981 for four
years at age 19.
The record reflects that you were advanced to
LCPL (E-3) and served without incident until 21 October 1982,
when you were formally counseled regarding two counts of driving
under the influence of alcohol and advised that your base driving
privileges were suspended for one year.
You served without
further incident until 8 January 1983 when you were counseled
again regarding misconduct of a discreditable nature with civil
authorities and unsatisfactory performance.
failure to take corrective action could result in administrative
separation under other than honorable conditions.
You were warned that
On 25 January 1983 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for
for two instances of failure to go to your appointed place of
duty and sleeping on post.
Thereafter, a Navy drug laboratory
reported that a urine sample you submitted on 11 February 1983
had tested positive for marijuana.
on the command screening program.
a second NJP for use of marijuana and a brief period of
unauthorized absence.
You were subsequently placed
On
16,March 1983 you received
On 31 March 1983, the staff judge
On 22 March 1983 the commanding officer recommended separation
under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due
to a pattern of misconduct.
advocate (SJA) advised the discharge authority that you had
consulted with legal counsel and waived your procedural rights.
The SJA found that your case was sufficient in law and fact. On
1 April 1983 the discharge authority directed discharge under
other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a
pattern of misconduct.
the command screening program incident to your discharge.
the two months you were in this program, you submitted eight
urine samples.
marijuana, the seventh was negative, and the results on the
eighth sample were still pending upon your removal from the
program.
conditions on 19 April 1983.
You were discharged under other than honorable
The first six samples were positive for
The record reflects you were removed from
During
The Board noted
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors such as your youth and immaturity,
good post-service conduct, letters of reference, your regret for
the actions that led to your discharge, and the fact that it has
been nearly 19 years since you were discharged.
your contentions that you had turned your life around, have not
used alcohol or drugs for more than ten years, and an upgraded
discharge would guarantee you a better job.
that the foregoing factors and contentions were insufficient to
warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your record of
formal counseling on at least two occasions and two
illegal drug use.
you continued to use drugs while you were in the command
screening program, thus demonstrating a willful disregard for
military authority and the Marine Corps drug policy.
Your
service achievements and desire for better employment oppor-
tunities do not provide a valid basis for recharacterizing
service.
no changes were warranted.
been denied.
will be furnished upon request.
Accordingly, your application-has
The names and votes of the members of the panel
The Board concluded that the discharge was proper and
The Board noted the aggravating factor that
The Board concluded
NJPs, one for
post-
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such
that favorable action cannot be taken.
the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and
material evidence or other matter not previously considered by
You are entitled to have
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
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 01514 12
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. Shortly thereafter, on 30 April 1984, your commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by three positive urinalyses, two NJPs for drug use, and civil conviction for DWI. Consequently, when applying...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00070-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 December 2008. 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 | 04378-01
considered your application on 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 noted that at the time of your reenlistment, you had two years of prior active service and should have been well aware of the consequences of abusing drugs. The Board believed that you were fortunate that CNMPC directed a general discharge since most...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR6905 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 July 2014. 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 | CY2012 | 00904 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 October 2012. On 31 January 1983, you were again UA for 20 days with no disciplinary action taken by your chain of command. In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when an individual is discharged for misconduct and is not recommended for retention.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08740-07
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 8 October 1983 the discharge authority approved this : ‘ recommendation and directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse, and on 17 October 1983 you were so discharged. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06979-00
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. that had the whatever division I am in. contention that CSF division was selected only because you were a However, every individual who testified member of that division.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03673-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 February 2008. 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 | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01009
ND04-01009 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040608. On 910117, CAAC was notified that SNM had tested positive for THC on a urinalysis conducted prior to the screening. Applicant did not object to separation.910321: Drug and Alcohol Abuse Report: During a random drug test, the Applicant tested positive for abuse of marijuana on or about 901219 ashore-off duty.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02970-01
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. drugs. factors and contention were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of the serious nature of your repetitive drug related misconduct which resulted in five all the circumstances of your case, discharge was proper as issued and no change is warranted.