Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06762-10
Original file (06762-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

TUR
Docket No: 6762-10
22 Roril Z2oiL

 

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 19 April 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
imjuskice:.

You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 18 November 1980 at age 19.
You served without disciplinary infraction until 19 May 1981,
when you refused to participate in a urinalysis. As a result, on
3 December 1981, you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for
failure to obey a lawful order by refusing to produce a urine
sample. The punishment imposed was extra duty and restriction
for 30 days and a $200 forfeiture of pay.

On 20 January 1982 you received NUP for a nine day period of
unauthorized absence (UA) and were awarded a $400 forfeiture of
pay, restriction for 60 days, and reduction to paygrade E-1. On
22 January 1982 you were counselled regarding your involvement in
a drug related incident, positive urinalysis for marijuana,
participation in a urinalysis surveillance program and a drug
rehabilitation course. At that time you were warned that any
further drug involvement would result in disciplinary action and
immediate administrative separation.
On 29 April 1982 you were notified of pending administrative
separation action by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.
Subsequently, you were offered and declined participation ina
drug rehabilitation program. After consulting with legal
counsel, you waived your right to present your case to an
administrative discharge board (ADB). On 2 June 1982 your
commanding officer recommended discharge under other than
honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as
evidenced by your wrongful use of marijuana, cocaine, and
amphetamines; and refusal to participate in a urinary
surveillance program and a drug rehabilitation program.

On 10 September 1982 the discharge authority approved this
recommendation and directed your commanding officer to issue you
an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to
drug abuse, and on 17 September 1982, you were so discharged.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth, post service conduct, desire to upgrade your
discharge, and the passage of time. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge because of the seriousness
of your repeated drug related misconduct which resulted in two
NIPs. Further, you were given an opportunity to defend yourself,
but waived your procedural right to present your case to an ADB.
Finally, no discharge is automatically upgraded due solely to an
individual's good post service conduct or the passage of time.
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,

Inn!
W. DEAN PF
Executive 1"

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2489-13

    Original file (NR2489-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 March 2014. 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 .

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11286-10

    Original file (11286-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ali material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. After waiving your procedural rights to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB), your commanding officer recommended separation under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement of a discreditable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3857-13

    Original file (NR3857-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 March 2014. 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 | 02141-09

    Original file (02141-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 December 2009. Your elected to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), which voted three to zero in favor of an under other than honorable discharge for 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00070-08

    Original file (00070-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 04378-01

    Original file (04378-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    considered your application on 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. The Board noted that at the time of your reenlistment, you had two years of prior active service and should have been well aware of the consequences of abusing drugs. The Board believed that you were fortunate that CNMPC directed a general discharge since most...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1624 14

    Original file (NR1624 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and consider your application on its merits.-- A. three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 February 2015. Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to wrongful drug use. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3028-13

    Original file (NR3028-13.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 April 2014. 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 concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the fact that you were...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00559-11

    Original file (00559-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 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 concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the seriousness of your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02585-08

    Original file (02585-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 November 2008. The Board noted that as a result of your prior period of honorable service, you may be eligible for veterans' benefits. 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.