DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHiNGTON DC 20370-51 00
SMW
Docket No: 5353-06
3 November 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 1 November 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.

On 10 September ±982 you enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 18 and served without incident for about two years. A urinalysis of 11 May 1984 tested positive for codiene and morphine, but an investigation revealed that you had been prescribed Tylenol III at that time and no disciplinary action was taken.

It appears that you received two nonjudicial punisliments (NJP’s) for illegal drug offenses during 1984. On 5 October 1984 your commanding officer recommended you for an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. In connection with this processing, you elected to have your case heard by an administratiaze discharge board (ADB). On 15 November 1984 an ADB found that you were guilty of misconduct due to drug abuse and recommended an other than honorable discharge. On 21 January 1985 the staff judge advocate found the ADB proceedings sufficient in law and fact, and stated that you were afforded all rights to which entitled. The SJA further stated that the ADB’s recommendation was based only on the two drug-related disciplinary actions, and the urinalysis of 11 May 1984 was not considered. On 28 January 1985 the separation authority approved the ADBS recommendation and directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. On 30 January 1985 you were separated with an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth. The Board also considered your contentions that the urinalysis was invalid and an attorney should have been detailed to represent you. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to the seriousness of your drug-related misconduct. Regarding your contentions, there is no evidence in the record to contradict the validity of the two drug-related disciplinary actions that resulted in your discharge, and you provided no such evidence. Finally, it appears that you were afforded all of the procedural rights to which you were entitled, including the right to be represented by counsel at the ADB. Therefore, the Board concluded that the discharge was proper as issued and no change is warranted.

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

2