Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02174-10
Original file (02174-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

- BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

TOR
Docket No: 2174-10
14 January 2011

 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your

naval 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 11 January 2011. 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 enlisted in the Navy on 24 July 1987 at age 17 and served
without disciplinary incident. On 26 November 1988 you
acknowledged, by your signature, that you understood and would
comply with the Navy’s drug abuse policy regarding “zero
tolerance,” which states, in part, that one time possession
and/or use of illegal drugs may be cause for an administrative

separation.

You reenlisted in the Navy on 3 July 1991 and continued to serve
without disciplinary infraction until 9 October 1992, at which
time a random vehicle inspection revealed what appeared to be
marijuana. With your consent, a search of your room was also
conducted, and as a result, a bag containing marijuana and
cigarette rolling papers were found. During a interview
regarding the foregoing, you admitted that a friend had dropped
Marijuana in your car, and that you had smoked marijuana about
three weeks prior to this incident.
On 22 July 1993 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 25 June 1993
an ADB recommended discharge under other than honorable
conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. On 26 June
1993 your commanding officer also recommended discharge under
other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to
drug abuse. On 23 July 1993 the discharge authority approved
these recommendations, and on 30 July 1993, you were so
Wischarged., :
i ;
The Board, in its deview of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
‘your prior honorable service and desire to upgrade your other
than honorable discharge. Nevertheless, the Board concluded
these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization
of your discharge because of the seriousness of your drug related
misconduct and your total disregard for the Navy’s “zero
tolerance” drug abuse policy. Accordingly, your application has
been denied.

In regard to your assertion that you were told by the Naval
Discharge Review Board (NDRB) that you would be issued two new
discharge certificates, be advised that this documentation is not
reflected in your record. If you wish to review your official
military personnel file, you may obtain a copy, which includes
the proceedings of the NDRB, by submitting the enclosed Request
Pertaining to Military Records, SF 180, to National Personnel

Records Center (Military Personnel Records) , 9700 Page Boulevard,
St. Louis MO 63132.

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,

lode

W. DEAN PFE
Executive Di

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04687-10

    Original file (04687-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04663-11

    Original file (04663-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 February 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 | CY2001 | 05830-01

    Original file (05830-01.pdf) 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. ing and assistance center determined that you were still not drug dependent and scheduled you for a four week outpatient course, beginning in March 1985. tested positive again for marijuana use on an aftercare urinalysis. not heed the warning that further drug abuse could result...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03862-01

    Original file (03862-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 15 August 1993 you were notified that action was being initiated to discharge you for misconduct due to drug abuse. Thereafter, the battalion commander concurred with the On 28 October You were On 16 June 1997 the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) denied your request for an upgrade of your discharge. Board also noted that when the CO notified you were being processed for discharge, recommend a general discharge under other than honorable However, there is no such characterization and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4903 13

    Original file (NR4903 13.pdf) 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. On 13 July 1993 the discharge authority approved: this’ recommendation and directed separation under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct, and on 16 July 1993 you were so discharged. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09004-09

    Original file (09004-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, ‘sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 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. Further, in accordance with Navy regulations, Sailors discharged by reason of misconduct must receive an RE-4 reenlistment code.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10622-10

    Original file (10622-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your ° application on 27 July 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 | CY2010 | 10085-10

    Original file (10085-10.pdf) 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. You reenlisted in the Navy on 21 February 1989, after more than two years of honorable 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00677-11

    Original file (00677-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 October 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. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge, given your record of an NJP...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03615-10

    Original file (03615-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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...