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

	CRS
Docket No: 6304-05
14 September 2006

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 16 August 2006. 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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.

The Board found that YOU reenlisted in the Na~ on 1 May 1984 after more than three years of prior active service. The record reflects that you received two nonjudicial punishments. The offenses included use of cocaine on two occasions, both of which were discovered due to positive urinalyses. One was a random urinalysis and the other was a unit sweep urinalysis.

On 4 August 1986 your commanding officer (CO) recommended that you be separated with an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. The CO also stated that his recommendation was based on a positive urinalysis. When informed of the recommendation, you elected to waive the right to present your case to an administrative discharge board. After review by the discharge authority, the recommendation for separation was approved but discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse was directed. You were 50 discharged on 29 August
1986.

In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors, such as your contention that your positive urinalysis violated your constitutional rights. However, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge, given your two nonjudicial punishments and repetitive drug use. In this regard, it is well founded in law that random and unit sweep urinalyses do not violate constitutional rights, and may be used in disciplinary and administrative proceedings. 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