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

SMW
Docket No: 6798-06
30 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, sec ion 1552.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 November 2006. Your allegations of error and injustice were r viewed 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 an conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Boar found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.

On 2 June 1986 y u enlisted in the Navy at age 18. On 23 October 1986 you receive nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for two brief instances of unauthorized absence (UA), and you were warned that further infractions could result in administrative separation or disciplinary act on. On 28 July 1987 you were convicted by civil court of drinking in public and sentenced to a day in jail. Upon return to your command, the absence was not excused and you were charged with UA. On 2 October 1987 you received NJP for the UA, and you were warned that further infractions could result in administrative separation or disciplinary action.

You then served without incident until 27 April 1988, when steroids and syringes were found in your locker during a health and comfort inspection. On 12 Nay 1988 you received NJP for two instances of disobedience of a lawful order, specifically, possession of steroids and drug paraphernalia.

A substance abuse report of 12 January 1989 reported that your urinalysis tested positive for use of cocaine. The report further stated that you were not dependent on drugs, and recommended separation. On 12 January 1989 you received NJP for three instances a UA totaling about three days and use of cocaine.

	On 12 January 1989 your commanding officer recommended an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and drug abuse. In connection with this processing, you were advised of the consequences of receiving such a discharge and waived the right to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 20 January 1989 you received NJP for sleeping on watch. On 26 January 1989 the separation authority approved the discharge recommendation and directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. On 30 January 1989 you were so discharged with an RE-4 reenlistment code, which means that you are neither eligible nor recommended for reenlistment.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and d sire to serve in the armed forces. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge or changing the reenlistment code due to the seriousness of your repetitive misconduct. Furthermore, regulations direct the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code to an individual separated due to misconduct. The Board also noted that you waived the right to an ADB, your best opportunity for retention or a more favorable characterization of service. Therefore, the Board concluded hat the discharge was proper as issued and no change is warranted.

Accordingly, you application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. It is regretted hat 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,	the 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 pro able material error or injustice.

Sincerely,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER 
Executive Director

2