DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
SMS
Docket No: 7886-08
8 May 2009
This is in veference 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
6 May 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 27 October 1987, you enlisted in the Navy at age 21 and served
without incident until June 1989, when you self-referred for cocaine
abuse and were placed on the urinalysis surveillance program.
On 23 June 1989, your urinalysis tested positive for cocaine.
On 3 July 1989, a substance abuse evaluation stated that you had
excellent potential for further service and recommended substance
abuse treatment. On 7 and 12 July 1989, your urinalyses tested
positive for cocaine. On 12 July 1989, you had nonjudicial
punishment (NJP) for failure to go to your appointed place of
duty and a three day period of unauthorized absence (UA). On
12 July 1989, you were also counseled vegarding deficiencies in your
performance and conduct and warned that further infractions could
result in disciplinary action or an other than honorable (OTH)
discharge. On 20 July 1989, your urinalysis again tested positive
for cocaine. On 16 August 1989, you began a period of UA that ended
the following day. On 23 August 1989, suspended punishment from the
NUP dated 12 July 1989, was vacated and you had another NuJP for
failure to go to your appointed place of duty and a day of UA.
On 31 August 1989, a medical evaluation recommended separation and
substance abuse treatment at a Veterans Affairs facility for your
dependency. On 3 October 1989, you began a UA that ended on
17 October 1989. On 9 November 1989, you had NUP for the 14 day
period of UA. On 1 February 1990, you were convicted by a special
court-martial for use of cocaine and marijuana on or about
3 November 1989.
On 6 April 1990, your commanding officer initiated administrative
separation by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and
drug abuse. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged
that separation could result in an OTH discharge and elected to have
your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). On
23 April 1990, an ADB convened and found that you were guilty of
misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and drug abuse, and the
majority of the ADB recommended an OTH discharge. On 2 May 1990, the
separation authority approved the recommendation and directed an OTH
discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. On
30 May 1990, you declined residential substance abuse treatment at a
Veterans Affairs facility before discharge. On 4 June 1990, you were
separated with an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due toa
pattern of misconduct.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potential mitigation, such as your youth.
The Board also considered your contention that your misconduct was
due to a drug addiction and you were never offered any help.
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
warned that further infractions could result in an OTH discharge.
Regarding your contentions, the record does show that you were drug
dependent, but that does not excuse misconduct. Furthermore, the
record shows that you did receive substance abuse assistance and were
offered residential substance abuse treatment, but you declined it.
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,
\Spsant
W. DEAN PFETFFE,
BExeculive Dirdc
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 | BCNR | CY2009 | 03608-09
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 | CY2009 | 03783-09
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. You elected to consult with legal counsel and subsequently requested an administrative discharge board (ADB). 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 | CY2008 | 07086-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 March 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. On 30 May 1988, the Secretary of the Navy approved your resignation request and directed an OTH characterization of service by reason of misconduct...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10658-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 July 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. 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 | 08387-08
On 21 December 1990, your commanding officer initiated administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to civil conviction, commission of a serious offense, and drug abuse. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged the separation action and that it could result in an other than honorable (OTH) discharge, waived the right to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), and submitted a statement in which you stated in essence that withdrawal symptoms from...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03877-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 April 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. On 9 November 1990, administrative discharge action was initiated to separate you by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03777-11
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 7 December 1989, the ADB voted to separate you due to your drug abuse with an OTH discharge. 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 | 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 | CY2007 | 06279-07
On 24 May 1990, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, prior honorable service, and overall record of your last period of service. 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.