DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 CRS
Docket No: 572-08
30 September 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 10 September 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 enlisted in the Navy on 12 November
2003. Urine samples you provided on 23 and 25 March 2007 tested
positive for amphetamines. On 5 April 2007, the Commanding
Officer, USS Toledo, imposed nonjudicial punishment on you for
wrongful use of amphetamines on 23 March 2007. The punishment
consisted of forfeiture of one-half pay per month for two months,
restriction for one day, and reduction in rate from MM3, E-4 to
MMFN, E-3.
On 7 August 2007 an administrative discharge board (ADB) convened
to determine if you had committed misconduct due to drug abuse.
The ADB found no misconduct and voted to retain you in the Navy.
The members of the ADB apparently accepted your testimony to the
effect that you had no recollection of using amphetamines, and
that of Ms. M, who was with you at a pub on the evening of 22
March 2007. She stated that you left the pub and went to a house,
where you complained of a headache, and she gave you what she
thought was Tylenol. After learning of the results of the
aforementioned urinalyses, she realized that she could have
mistakenly given you Adderall, a prescription drug containing
amphetamines that she had been prescribed for attention deficit
disorder, because the house was dimly lighted, and she carried a
lot of medications, all of which were in one container.
On 18 September 2007 the Commanding Officer, Naval Submarine
Support Center, requested that the Director, Navy Alcohol and
Drug Abuse Prevention Branch, annotate the “ADMITS” database to
reflect that the positive urinalysis in your case was not a drug
abuse incident.
The Board was not persuaded that the nonjudicial punishment you
received on 5 April 2007 is erroneous or unjust, notwithstanding
the findings of the ADB of 7 August 2007 and the determination of
the Commanding Officer, Naval Submarine Support Center of 18
September 2007. The Board did not find the testimony of Ms. M to
be compelling evidence of your innocence. It concluded that the
Commanding Officer, USS Toledo, acted reasonably in your case,
and that he was in the best position to resolve factual issues
and to impose appropriate punishment. The Board concluded that
you have not demonstrated that it would be in the interest of
justice for it to set-aside the nonjudicial punishment.
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,
ls
W. DEAN
Executive Dil
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 | 2006_Navy | ND0600612
The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). ), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.020308: NAVDRUGLAB, San Diego, CA, reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 020301, tested positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine and THC.020314: Restriction and extra duty for 45 days and reduction...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06169-07
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.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.On 7 September 1982, you reenlisted in the Naval Reserve at age 27 after a prior period of honorable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10826-02
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 CRS Docket No: 10826-02 11 September 2003 The Board also considered an advisory opinion on.a from the Navy Environmental Health Your allegations of error and application for correction of your provisions of title 10 of the United This is in reference to your naval record pursuant to the States Code section 1552. commanding officer's decision at NJP that you had used drugs was reasonable, given...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02648-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 November 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 | 2006_Navy | ND0600214
The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions) and that the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed. The separation authority directed that the Applicant be discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2449-13
R three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 February 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600083
ND06-00083 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20051014. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). Specification 2: In that Yeoman Third Class (Submarine) J_ D. D_(Applicant), U.S. Navy Submarine Squadron Support Unit, New London, on active duty, violate a lawful order issued by the Commanding Officer, Submarine Squadron Support Unit, to wit...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04323-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 January 2012. 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 | CY2008 | 00149-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 November 2008. 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 material error or injustice.