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

TJR
										Docket No: 2782-06 
										16 October 2006

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 11 October 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.

You reenlisted in the Navy on 1 April 1987 after three years of prior honorable service. On 16 February 1988 you were hospitalized for alcohol and/or cocaine withdrawal. You were diagnosed with alcohol dependence and cocaine abuse and recommended for a rehabilitation program. During the period from 7 to 18 March 1988 you were again hospitalized after being referred for suicidal ideation. You were diagnosed with major depression, a personality disorder, and alcohol abuse. The psychiatric evaluation stated, in part as follows:

(Member) admitted for evaluation of suicidal ideation and depression..., attempted suicide in relation to episode of heavy drinking and depression due to disrupted engagement with his finance.... diagnosed; major depression, mixed personality disorder manifested by chronic feeling of emptiness, difficulty with interpersonal relationships, and aggressive impulse control difficulties.... alcohol abuse.... unmotivated for change.

On 14 April 1988 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for two specifications of wrongful use of cocaine and were awarded a reduction to paygrade E-3, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, and a $859 forfeiture of pay.

On 16 April 1988 you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and drug abuse. At that time you waived your right to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). Your commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and drug abuse. On 25 April 1988 the discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed an other than honorable discharge, and on 11 May 1988 you were so discharged.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your prior honorable service and assertions that you were unjustly prosecuted and returned to duty under duress. It also considered your assertion that you were told that you were untreatable and that rehabilitation was fruitless. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your drug related misconduct. Further, you waived your right to an ADB, your best chance for retention or a better characterization of service. There is no evidence in the record, and you submitted none, to support your assertions. 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