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

FC
Docket No: 1244-04
2 August 2004

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.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 July 2004. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regu1ation and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary the 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 that the evidence submitted was ±ris~if I iCi N1t. ~o t~ ~ is tAlc Qr?tSt ~nc s t ~ ob DL is r~ A error or injustice.

The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 27 August 1980 at age 19. On 8 June 1981 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for a five-day period of unauthorized absence (UA) and were awarded forfeitures of pay, a reduction to paygrade E-3 and an oral reprimand. On 29 June 1981 a service record entry was made documenting a one-day period of UA. There is no record that any disciplinary action was taken for this offense. On 18 August 1981 you were not permitted to enroll into the nuclear power program because of your military infractions.

On 21 January 1982 you received a second NJP for possession of hashish and were awarded restriction, extra duty, a reduction to paygrade E-2 and forfeitures of pay. A portion of the forfeitures was suspended.’ On 23 March 1983 you received a third NJP for using marijuana and were awarded suspended restriction, extra duty, forfeitures of pay and a reduction to paygrade E-2. On that same day, you were counseled about your deficiencies in conduct and performance, and warned of the consequences of continued misconduct. However, on 10 July 1984 you received a fourth NJP for using marijuana and a brief period of UA. You were awarded restriction, extra duty, forfeitures of pay, and a reduction to paygrade E-3.

On 18 July 1984 a medical officer determined that you were not drug dependent and were eligible only for local counseling. On that same day, you were notified of administrative separation processing and you waived all of your procedural rights. On 20 July 1984 the commanding officer recommended an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. On 27 July 1984 the separation authority directed discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct. On 3 August 1984 you were so discharged.

In its review of your case, the Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors such as your youth, the time that has passed since you were discharged from the Navy, your good post service conduct, and your contention that you were never offered or ordered into drug treatment. However, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your repeated use and possession of drugs and unauthorized absence that resulted in four NJPs. In regards to your contention that you were not offered or ordered into drug treatment, the Board noted that a medical officer determined that you were not drug dependent and not eligible for treatment other than local command counseling. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

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,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director