Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 08982-03
Original file (08982-03.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
                                             WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

                                                                                          SJN
                                                                                           Docket No: 08982-03
                                                                                           2 August 2004









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 27 July 2004. Your allegations of error and injustic e 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 injustice .
You enlis t ed in the Na vy on November During the period from 17 August 1978 to 31 October 1979 y ou received two nonjudicial punishments (NJP) for possession of marijuana and misbehavior as a sentinel. After the NJP for marijuana possession, you were referred for screening to a counseling and assistance center (CAAC), and on 28 August 1978 you were found not to be drug dependent.
On 27 November 1979, after a medical evaluation stated that you might be psychologically dependent on drugs, the commanding officer recommended that you attend CAAC counseling. He stated that you had the potential to be a good sailor and if treatment helped you recognize your own worth, he recommended retention in the service. However, on 29 February and 7 March 1980, you received two additional NJP’s for possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of marijuana.
You were then processed for an administrative discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. After you elected to waive the rights to consult counsel, submit a statement or have your case heard by an administrative board, the commanding officer recommended discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. On 12 June 1980 the discharge authority directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct, and you were so discharged on 10 March 1980.










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 the contentions that you were not afforded an opportunity to complete your tour of duty, and should have been allowed to complete a drug rehabilitation program instead of low level counseling. However, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the four NJP’s, two of which were imposed after your last CAAC referral. The Board noted that you were given a chance to earn a better discharge when your commanding officer referred you to CAAC counseling. Additionally, drug abuse does not excuse misconduct, and disciplinary action is appropriate after drug related offenses. 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,
2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02435-06

    Original file (02435-06.rtf) 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.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 injustice.You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 29 July 1977 at age 20. On 24October 1979 you were convicted by...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00588-01

    Original file (00588-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 August 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. all the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 07582-98

    Original file (07582-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 March 1999. 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. However, during the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11188-07

    Original file (11188-07.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. On 2 May 1980 you received NUP for wrongful possession of marijuana and were awarded a $254 forfeiture of pay, reduction to paygrade E-2, and restriction and extra duty for 30 days. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07617-07

    Original file (07617-07.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 July 2008. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03538-10

    Original file (03538-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 February 2011. After waiving your procedural rights, the discharge authority directed your commanding officer to issue you an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse, and on 5 August 1980, you were so discharged. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01113-07

    Original file (01113-07.rtf) 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.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 injustice.You enlisted in the Navy on 1 December 1977 at age 18 and served without disciplinary incident until 8...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03883-07

    Original file (03883-07.rtf) 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.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 injustice.You enlisted in the Navy on 9 September 1977 at age 17 and served for seven months without...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00061-01

    Original file (00061-01.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 June 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. thereafter, on 27 August 1980, you received NJP for possession of marijuana and were awarded a $500 forfeiture of pay and restriction and extra duty for 30 days. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00338-08

    Original file (00338-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 August 2008. 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 injustice. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...