Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05789-08
Original file (05789-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

SMS
Docket No: 5789-08
26 February 2009

 

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

25 February 2009. 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.

On 13 January 1987, you enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 24.

On 7 July 1987, your urinalysis tested positive for cocaine.

On 4 January 1988, you were counseled regarding deficiencies

in the performance of your duties, specifically, driving a

government vehicle in a reckless manner. At that time, you were

also warned that further infractions could result in disciplinary
action or administrative separation. On 10 February 1988, you had
nonjudicial punishment for use of cocaine. You were also counseled
regarding drug abuse and warned that further infractions could result
in an other than honorable (OTH) discharge. During the period

12 to 13 May 1988, you were in an unauthorized absence (UA) status.
On 19 May 1988, you were in a UA status when you failed to attend a
substance abuse counseling appointment. During the period 20 May to
24 June 1988, you were in a UA status on two occasions totaling about
33 days. On 9 August 1988, you were convicted by a summary court-
Martial of four instances of UA totaling 34 days.

Based on the information currently contained in the record it appears
that your commanding officer subsequently initiated administrative
separation by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. In connection
with this processing, you would have acknowledged that separation
could result in an OTH discharge and been afforded the right to have
your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB).
Apparently the separation authority approved the discharge
recommendation and directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct
due to drug abuse. On 30 August 1988, you declined substance abuse
treatment at a Veterans Affairs facility. On 24 October 1988, you
were separated with an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to

drug abuse.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potential mitigation, such as your youth and
post service conduct. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these
factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your
service due to the seriousness of your misconduct that continued even
after you were warned that further infractions could result in an OTH
discharge. Furthermore, there is no provision in the law or
regulations that allows for recharacterization of service due solely
to the passage of time. The Board also noted that you had the right
to have your case heard by an ADB, which was your best opportunity
for retention or a more favorable characterization of service.
Therefore, the Board concluded that the discharge was proper as
issued and no change is warranted. 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,

 
    
 

W. DEAN PFEIF
Executive Dir

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07886-08

    Original file (07886-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 May 2009. 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to the seriousness of your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03608-09

    Original file (03608-09.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 January 2010. 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. At that time you were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06798-06

    Original file (06798-06.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 an conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Boar found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.On 2 June 1986 y u enlisted in the Navy at age 18. On 12 January 1989 you received NJP for three...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00396-08

    Original file (00396-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 August 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 | CY2012 | 04339-12

    Original file (04339-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 March 2013. Additionaily, you were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05741-07

    Original file (05741-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 February 2008. On 15 January 1990, you began a UA that ended on 3 February 1990, a period of about 19 days. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to the seriousness of your misconduct that continued even after you were counseled regarding deficiencies in your performance and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05108-10

    Original file (05108-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 February 2011. 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 18 August 1988, administrative separation action was initiated by reason of misconduct for drug abuse.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01737-80

    Original file (01737-80.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 October 2008. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged that separation could result in an OTH discharge and waived the right to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to your misconduct that continued...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07864-07

    Original file (07864-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 May 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 | CY2008 | 05961-08

    Original file (05961-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 February 2009. 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. Regarding your contentions, there is no evidence in the record to show that you ever requested or were denied treatment for alcohol abuse, but...