Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4069 14
Original file (NR4069 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
7O1 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

TAL
Docket No: 4069-14
8 April 2015

 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your

naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United
States Code, section 1552.

Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the
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

18 March 2015. 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 ail 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 Marine Corps on 15 December 1998 under a drug
waiver, having acknowledged using marijuana and lysergic acid
diethylamide (LSD) on several oceasions. > On 31 March 2009, you
tested positive for wrongful use of cocaine. Subsequently, you
were notified of pending administrative separation by reason of
misconduct due to drug abuse. You consulted with counsel and
elected ‘to present your case to an administrative discharge board
(ADB). The ADB found that you committed misconduct and
recommended that you be retained in the Marine Corps. Your
commanding. officer disagreed withthe ADB’ recommendation for
retention and recommerided discharged with ‘a general
characterization of service by reason of misconduct due to drug
abuse. The discharge authority approved this recommendation and
directed separation under honorable conditions by reason of
misconduct; and on'18 March 2011, you were sO discharged 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 upgrade your discharge and reenlistment code.
Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not
sufficient to warrant relief in your case because of the
seriousness of your misconduct. Additionally, the Board
considered the existence of your Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
(PTSD) and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) diagnosed at the time of
your discharge and weighed its existence as potential mitigation
in the misconduct you committed. Specifically, the Board looked
to see whether it was a causative factor in your misconduct and
weighed it against the severity of your actions. After carefully
considering the evidence, the Board determined the severity of
your misconduct far outweighed any mitigation the PTSD and TBI
provides. The offense you committed was very serious in nature
warranting the discharge characterization you received even
taking into consideration the existence of PTSD and TBI.
Finally, a Marine separated by reason of misconduct must receive
an RE-4 reenlistment code. 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 within one year from the date of the Board’s decision.
New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board
prior to making its decision in your case. 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,

ROBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7771 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR7771 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 July 2015. 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. In your case, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6699 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR6699 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 July 2015. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR13168 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR13168 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 July 2015. 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. Specifically, the Board looked to see whether it was a causative factor in your misconduct and weighed it against the severity of your actions.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR621 14

    Original file (NR621 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 February 2015. 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 | CY2014 | NR621 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR621 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 February 2015 . 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 pclicies. After applying these guidelines to the evidence in the case, the Board was not able to substantiate the existence o= PTSD in your case .

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3458 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR3458 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    a three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, Sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 March 2015. Documentary materia considered by the Board ¢ your application, together with all material submitted in support a : = thereof, your naval Tecora, anda 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3452 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR3452 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, Sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 March 2015. The discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed separation under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct, on 17 October 1986, you were so discharged The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your discharge and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR0896 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR0896 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 February 2015. 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. Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to wrongful drug use.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR896 14

    Original file (NR896 14.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. Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to wrongful drug use. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of service, desire to upgrade your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1004 14

    Original file (NR1004 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A. three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 February 2015. 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 were so ‘discharge on 10 November 1992. : The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all...