DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
CRS
Docket No: 10707-07
23 June 2008
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10 of the 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 11 June 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 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 reenlisted in the Navy on 28 November
2001 after more than three years of prior active service. A
unit-sweep urinalysis of your unit was conducted n 22 October
2002. On 31 October 2002 you received nonjudicial punishment for
the unlawful use of amphetamines and methamphetamines. The
punishment consisted of forfeiture of one-half of one month’s pay
per month for two months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days,
and reduction to pay grade E-3. It does not appear that you
submitted a timely appeal from the nonjudicial punishment.
On 1 June 2003 an administrative discharge recommended that you
be separated from the Navy with a discharge under other than
honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse;
however, on 21 August 2003 the separation authority directed that
you be retained in the Navy because he had concerns about the
conduct of the Sailors who had supervised the collection of urine
samples on 22 October 2002. On 27 January 2006, while serving as
a third class culinary specialist, CS3,E-4, you were honorably
discharged by reason of completion of required active service,
and assigned a reentry code of RE-6. You were not permitted to
reenlist because you exceeded grade and service requirements of
the high-year tenure program.
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors, such as your overall record of
service and contention to the effect that improprieties in the:
administration and conduct of the unit sweep invalidated the
results of the urinalysis. The Board concluded that those
factors are insufficient to warrant setting aside the nonjudicial
punishment imposed on 31 October 2002 or directing that you be
reinstated in the Navy. The Board was not persuaded that the
specimen you provided was tampered with, or that you did not use
illegal drugs as charged. As service members do not have the
right to reenlist at the expiration of their enlistments, you
would not be entitled to reinstatement or reenlistment even if
the Board were to determine that you had not used illegal drugs.
Since you have not established that you should have been promoted
to CS2, E-5 prior to the expiration of your enlistment, there is
no basis for correcting your record to show that you were
discharged in that grade and assigned a more favorable reentry
code.
In view of the foregoing, 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 PF
Executive Di xr
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...
USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00980
The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 940509: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed misconduct due to drug abuse, and by a vote of 2 to 1 that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended by a vote of 1 to 1 to 1, that the characterization of service be honorable, under honorable conditions (general), and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06881-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 April 2002. The recommendations of the medical board were to attempt to control the cluster headaches through medication and a six month period of limited duty. Additionally the Board considered the statements of your commanding officer concerning his investigation, your personal letter written concerning your positive urinalysis test and the fact that you were...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 06304-05
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 reenlisted in the Na~ on 1 May 1984 after more than three years of prior...
USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100832
The Applicant was processed again for administrative separation from the service.The NDRB reviewed the Applicant’s administrative separation package to ensure he was afforded all rights, as required by the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual (MARCORSEPMAN).On 07 April 2009, the Applicant was notified - in writing - of the Command’s intent to process him for administrative separation for Misconduct (Drug Abuse) in accordance with paragraph 6210.5 of the MARCORSEPMAN. On 26 August...
USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00205
MD03-00205 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20021114, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. “In closing, I am respectfully requesting the discharge upgrade to Honorable as well as the re-entry code be upgraded to support re-enlistment so that I may further serve my country upon completion of my college degree.” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation,...
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.
USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600415
The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Before his nonjudicial punishment, Lance Corporal E_ was a Corporal with over three years of time in service. Whenever a Marine is involved in misconduct due to drug abuse, on the first offense, commanders shall process the member for administrative separation.
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 | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00721
ND04-00721 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040330. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). Other than the above exceptions, drug abuse must be processed using administrative board procedures (MILPERSMAN 1910-404) with Under Other Than Honorable (OTH) being the least favorable characterization of service considered.