DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TUR
Docket No: 3619-10
9 Feoruary 2011
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, United
States Code, Séction 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 8 February 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.
Biter 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 12 January 2009 at age 38 and began a
period of active duty on 2 November 2009. Shortly thereafter, on
5 November 2009, a drug laboratory report stated that your urine
sample tested positive for marijuana. As a result, on 9 November
2009, you were notified of pending administrative separation by
reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. After electing your
procedural rights, you objected to the separation and submitted a
rebuttal statement to the aforementioned notification. This
statement noted, in part, that your urine sample tested positive
due to “second hand smoke.” However, on 23 November 2009, a Navy
Drug Screening Laboratory determined that your sample was not
positive due to passive inhalation of marijuana as evidenced by
the high level of marijuana metabolites found in your urine. The
screening reflected a significantly higher level of marijuana
metabolites than that of the Navy’s cutoff level. Subsequently,
on 29 November 2009, your commanding officer recommended
separation by reason of erroneous entry due to drug abuse. On 3
December 2009 the separation authority approved this
recommendation and directed an uncharacterized entry level
separation by reason of erroneous entry due to drug abuse. On 8
December 2009 you were so separated and assigned an RE-4
reenlistment code.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your desire to change your reenlistment code and post service
conduct. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were
not sufficient to warrant a change of your reenlistment code
because of your pre-service drug abuse, which is sufficient to
support both the uncharacterized entry level separation and
assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code. Finally, such a code is
authorized by regulatory guidelines and required to be assigned
to Sailors who are separated due to drug abuse and are not
recommended for retention or reenlistment. 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,
loan
W. DEAN P
Executive
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10826-02
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 CRS Docket No: 10826-02 11 September 2003 The Board also considered an advisory opinion on.a from the Navy Environmental Health Your allegations of error and application for correction of your provisions of title 10 of the United This is in reference to your naval record pursuant to the States Code section 1552. commanding officer's decision at NJP that you had used drugs was reasonable, given...
CG | BCMR | Alcohol and Drug Cases | 2002-093
of the Personnel Manual, his CO was recommending that he be administratively discharged from the Coast Guard. He argued that because the applicant acknowledged his rights, declined to make a statement, and signed the first endorsement on his CO’s recommendation for his discharge, the applicant was not denied any due process regarding his discharge. He contended that the “irregularity” with which the CO handled the charges against him likely resulted in his command applying...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06158-01
g. A Navy pharmacologist submitted a report to the ADB in which she stated that both marijuana and hemp will produce the metabolite THC. The majority notes that the DAA.R reporting the accession urinalysis was apparently never acted upon by anyone and it was not considered in the discharge processing. The foregoing report of the Board is submitted for your review and action.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07685-05
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 May 2006. (13) to investigate the possibility of a positive urine drug test as a result of daily ingestion of various amounts of these “new’ t preparations, with total daily doses of THC ranging from 0.09 to 0.6 mg (equivalent to 45-300 g of hulled hemp seeds containing 2 /Lg/g THC or 19—120 mL of hemp-seed oil at 5 mg/L THC) in the form of blends of hemp- seed...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01148-01
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 ELP Docket No. 1148-01 28 June 2001 Dea r
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02241-06
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 1 September 2005 at age 17. On 14 September 2005 the discharge authority...
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...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500136
The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to “miscellaneous/General Reasons”. The summary of service clearly documents that misconduct due to drug abuse was the reason the Applicant was discharged. The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Navy Discharge Review Board.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02298-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 August 2000. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. You were so discharged on 15 September 1999 and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01333
DPPRS states based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion...