DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX SION
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 Docket No: 10387-0939
3 August 2010
States Code, section 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 27 July 2010. 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice. .
You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on
18 December 2003. Based on the information currently contained
in your record it appears you served without incident for over
four years until 1 April 2008, when you refused nonjudicial
punishment (NIP) for wrongful use of cocaine. Subsequently,
administrative discharge action was initiated to separate you by
reason of misconduct due to drug abuse, You elected to consult
counsel and have your case heard before an administrative
discharge board (ADB). On 18 August 2008, the ADB unanimously
found that you had committed misconduct by wrongfully .using
cocaine and recommended separation with an other than honorable
discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. On
29 August 2008 your commanding officer (CO) concurred with the
ADB's findings, but forwarded your case recommending that you
receive a general discharge. However, on 9 September 2008,
the separation authority directed an other than honorable
discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. On
26 September 2008 you were 80 discharged. , _
3
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your overall record,
character letters, and contention that your discharge should be
set aside because you felt that your ADB was illegally comprised
and tainted with unlawful command influence because the senior
member of the ADB was your acting CO. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to remove the ADB or
set aside your discharge from your official records, for the
reasons set forth in your CO’s forwarding letter dated 29 August
2008 to the separation authority in response to your counsel's
letter of deficiency. 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,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04170-07
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.You enlisted in the Navy on 24 April 1989 at age 34. Your commanding officer concurred with the ADB...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06952-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 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. On 14 May 1984, administrative discharge action was initiated to separate you by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00471-09
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. Your commanding officer did not contest the findings or recommendation of the ADB; however, he denied your request that he set-aside the related NUP. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04220-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 February 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 26 November 1990, administrative discharge action was initiated to separate you by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.
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 | CY2010 | 12215-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 August 2011. On 8 March 1989 the discharge authority directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. 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 | CY2009 | 02309-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 February 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 15 March 1990 a second ADB recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01204-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 November 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 | CY2009 | 04907-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 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 7 March 1988, administrative discharge action was initiated to separate you by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03943-99
Though Petitioner's BCNR case file does not establish Petitioner's actual notice of the current version of DOD Directive 1010.4, the fact Petitioner's rehabilitative potential was affirmatively considered and assessed prior to his discharge makes resolution of this issue unnecessary. Application to Petitioner's case. drug use was evidenced by a urinalysis for methamphetamine and Petitioner's further drug use following a second positive urinalysis in Petitioner's history of drug use and...