DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TUR
Docket No: 792-10
11 March 2010
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
haval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, 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 9 March 2010. The names and votes of the
members of the panel will be furnished upon request. 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 reenlisted in the Navy on 30 August 1989 after six years of
prior honorable service. You continued to serve without
disciplinary infraction until 8 January 1996, when your urine
sample tested positive for marijuana. On 27 January 1996 you
submitted a sworn statement in which you admitted, in part, that
you had smoked marijuana while drunk and that it was a one time
occurrence that was a terrible mistake. Nonetheless, on 31
January 1996, you received nonjudicial punishment (NIP) for
wrongful use of marijuana. The punishment imposed was a $1,800
forfeiture of pay, restriction for 60 days, and a reduction to
paygrade E-5.
On 7 February 1996 you were notified of pending administrative
separation action by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.
After consulting with legal counsel, you elected to present your
case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 3 March 1996
an ADB recommended retention even though you had committed
misconduct due to drug abuse. On 4 March 1996 your commanding
officer, in concurrence with the ADB, also recommended retention.
However, on 25 July 1996 the discharge authority disapproved
these recommendations and directed your commanding officer to
issue you a general discharge under honorable conditions by
reason of misconduct due to drug abuse, and on 13 September 1996,
you were so discharged.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your prior honorable service and desire for revocation of your
discharge based on the recommendation of the ADB. It also
considered your assertion that your urine sample tested positive
as a result of secondhand smoke. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization or revocation of your discharge because of the
seriousness of your self-admitted drug related misconduct which
resulted in NUP. Accordingly, your application has been denied.
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,
\S
W. DEAN PF
Executive D
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 | CY2002 | 03659-02
The record On 30 July 2001 you appealed the NJP based on an investigation into the chain of custody of the urine samples, and a negative analysis of a hair sample you submitted to a private laboratory after the NJP. The Board concurred With regard to your contentions pertaining to the chain of custody of the urine samples, sample, the Board concurred with the remarks in the commanding officer's endorsement of your NJP appeal to the effect there was no chain of custody problem with analysis...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00070-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 December 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 | 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 | BCNR | CY2008 | 09401-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 July 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01329
The applicant’s squadron commander made the recommendation to the Air Wing commander. On 13 October 2000, her commander notified her of his intent to impose NJP and to discharge her from the NYANG for violating NY State law by wrongfully using THC, a controlled substance. Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant contends the cutoff level for determining a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03619-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 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. 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 | CY2004 | 01715-04
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 Naval Reserve on 19 November 1993 at age 18 and reported for active duty on 24...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01329_2nd_Board
The applicant’s squadron commander made the recommendation to the Air Wing commander. On 13 October 2000, her commander notified her of his intent to impose NJP and to discharge her from the NYANG for violating NY State law by wrongfully using THC, a controlled substance. Counsel’s complete response is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant contends the cutoff level for determining a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00571-00
refrigerator first, the other individual who was unable to provide a full sample placed the bottle in the refrigerator after him. stated that you had not used LSD. map" for the commanding officer's use in deciding However, the February 1992 issuance of Navy When it was issued with OPNAVINST The Board concluded that since the CO did not have (NA.VADMIN) "road the appendix was clearly designed to The Board believed that the urinalysis was conducted in accordance with regulations and was...