Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03338-07
Original file (03338-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


                                   
TRG
         Docket No: 3338-07
        14 May 2008

From:    Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To:      Secretary of the Navy

Subj REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF

Ret:     (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552

En cl :    (1) Case Summary
(2)      Subject’s naval record

1.       Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former member of the Navy, filed an application with this Board requesting that his RE-4 reenlistment code be changed.

2. The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 29 April 2008 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.

3.       The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice, finds as follows:

a.       Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy.

b.       Petitioner’s application was submitted in a timely manner.

c.       Petitioner enlisted in the Navy on 7 August 2006 at age
18.      The results of a urinalysis were reported on 9 August 2006 and showed that he had tested positive for oxymorphine. Based on the positive urinalysis, he was processed for an administrative separation from the Navy. In connection with this processing, he elected to waive his procedural rights. After review, the separation authority directed an entry level separation by reason of erroneous entry-drug abuse and he was so separated on 21 August 2006. At that time he was not recommended for reenlistment and was assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.

d.       Petitioner states that while in the Delayed Entry Program he had a pulled muscle and prior to reporting to active duty he had taken hydrocodone for his pain. HydroCodone is
related to oxymorphine. He has provided proof that he was prescribed that drug in 2004 after he was involved in an automobile accident. He states that although he had proof of the prescription he neglected to inform the Navy and when informed of separation processing his recruiter and parents tried to fax the prescription to the Recruit Training Command. He believes that the fax may have been received after his separation.

e.       Petitioner has submitted several excellent character references with his application that attest to his desire to serve in the Navy. Additionally his grandfather, a retired senior chief, states that he has a brother who retired from the Navy and another brother who also served in the Navy. Further, other members of the family had also served in the Navy. He states that his grandson desires to carry on this Navy tradition.

f.       Regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual is separated by reason of erroneous enlistment-drug abuse. However an RE-3E reenlistment code may be assigned when an individual is separated only because of an erroneous enlistment and drug abuse is not a factor.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants favorable action. It is clear that Petitioner tested positive for oxymorphine and separation was required. However, it is also clear that he was given an prescription for hydrocondone in 2004 and had access to that drug. The Board believes that if this scenario is true he probably did not understand the possible ramifications of this drug use. Given the excellent character references and his desire to serve, the Board believes he should be given the benefit of any doubt as to his drug abuse and should have another opportunity to serve. Therefore, his DD Form 214 should be corrected to show that he was separated by reason of erroneous enlistment with an RE-3E reenlistment code vice the separation by reason of erroneous enlistment-drug abuse and RE-4 reenlistment code now of record.

The Board further concludes that this Report of Proceedings should be filed in Petitioner’s naval record so that all future reviewers will understand the reasons for the change in the reason for separation and reenlistment code.





RECO MME NDATION:

a. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that on 21 August 2006 he was separated from the Navy by reason of erroneous entry and was assigned an RE-3E reenlistment code.

b. That this Report of Proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record.

4. It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board’s review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board’s proceedings in the above entitled matter.


ROBERT D. ZSALMAN        BRIAN J. GEORGE
Recorder         Acting Recorder

5. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section
6(e) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(e)) and having assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby announced that the foregoing corrective action, taken under the authority of reference (a), has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.



ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director
























3

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07425-00

    Original file (07425-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    1552 (1) Case Summary (2) Subject's naval record Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a 1. former enlisted member of the Navy filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his record be corrected by changing the 4 reenlistment code assigned on 25 September 2000. was within days of completing recruit training when he was separated. "JFC", The record should then be corrected to show that "Erroneous entry (other)" and The RE-3E reenlistment code The Board further...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08162-00

    Original file (08162-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, Board requesting, in effect, by changing the RE-4 reenlistment code assigned on 28 December 1999. that his naval record be corrected filed enclosure (1) with this 2. chancel' since he says that he was told that he could He requests a f. With his application, Petitioner has submitted a statement from a recruiter with whom he is now working, who points out that at the time of Petitioner's separation...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08650-00

    Original file (08650-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, Board requesting, in effect, by changing the RE-4 reenlistment code assigned on 25 September 2000. that his naval record be corrected filed enclosure (1) with this McPartlin, and Ms. 2. September 2000, the recruit division commander also recommended By letter of 7 in retention, citing his demonstration of Commitment.W lloutstanding job on his duties," and his '@the Navy core values of Honor,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500289

    Original file (ND1500289.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The majority of board members at the NDRB view this as a validation of the presumption of regularity in the findings resulting from the Applicant’s sample as urinalysis specimens arriving at a Navy Drug Screening Laboratory (NDSL) are inspected for container damage or evidence of tampering, with particular attention to the condition of the box seals, which should be intact with the command’s Urinalysis Program Coordinator’s signature printed across the taped box seams. Summary: After a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08398-06

    Original file (08398-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.3. At the time of the urinalysis he had stated that he had been given an unauthorized prescription drug by another Sailor on a drill weekend.e. Otherwise, there is no reason for an administrative discharge board to consider a case, and petitioners will surely opt for the informal exparte proceedings of this Board rather than the more demanding and...

  • CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2009-191

    Original file (2009-191.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The ASB stated that if Coast Guard policy had any flexibility to allow retention of a member following a drug incident, the board would have recommended his reten- tion on active duty. The fact that the command later took action against the applicant after receiving evidence that he was accepting and filling prescriptions for opioid drugs without informing the prescribing physician of his addiction does not shock the Board’s sense of justice.7 The applicant alleged that his discharge was...

  • CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2009-103

    Original file (2009-103.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    states that in determining whether a drug incident occurred, a commanding officer should consider all the available evidence, including positive confirmed urinalysis test results, any documentation of prescriptions, medical and dental record, and chain of command recommendations. Yet, as evidenced by the applicant’s discharge, the CO determined that the applicant had been involved in a drug incident and recommended his discharge from the Coast Guard, which required the approval of the...

  • CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2011-249

    Original file (2011-249.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Navy classmate further stated that the applicant did not ask him to fabricate a story, that he did not see anyone put anything in their drinks while at the club, that the gentleman at the club bought two drinks for each of them and “was gay, acting like he was trying to pick someone up”; that the applicant did not act out of the ordinary after drinking at the club; and that he was unaware of the applicant taking any drugs. On May 2, 2006, the CO sent the Personnel Command a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | NC9805169

    Original file (NC9805169.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board, consisting of Messrs. Ivins, Rothlein, and Taylor, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 14 July 1999 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Therefore, the Board concludes that the record should be corrected to show that he was discharged with an uncharacterized entry level separation by reason of erroneous enlistment. That Petitioner's naval record be...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1401361

    Original file (ND1401361.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable because he misused a prescription drug and that is not the same as drug abuse.2. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s date of discharge. Additionally,...