DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~5 1 00

                                                                                           TJR
										Docket No: 11109-06
										1 November 2007

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 30 October 2007. 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 enlisted in the Navy on 23 October 1984 at age 20 and served about four months without disciplinary incident. However, during the period from 14 February to 18 October 1985, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on three occasions for two specifications of using indecent language, wrongful use of a controlled substance, absence from your appointed place of duty, and failure to obey a lawful order.

On 24 April 1986 you received NJP for disrespect and absence from your appointed place of duty. The punishment imposed was a $720 forfeiture of pay and restriction for 60 days. Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. At that time you waived your right to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADE). On 10 May 1986 your commanding officer was directed to reprocess you for separation by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. On 12 May 1986 you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of wrongful use of marijuana and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 30 days and a $426 forfeiture of pay. Shortly thereafter, you were again notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse, and again you waived your right to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an ADB. On 22 May 1986 your commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. On 3 June 1986 the discharge authority directed separation under other than honorable conditions, and on 18 June 1986 you were so discharged.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, post service conduct, and the character reference letters submitted in support of your case. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of the seriousness of your misconduct, which resulted in four NJPs, a court-martial conviction, and included drug abuse. Further, the record shows that on two occasions you were given the opportunity to defend yourself, but waived your procedural right to present your case to an ADB. Finally, your assertion of good post service conduct was also considered, however, a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) report states that since discharge you have been convicted by civil authorities of drug trafficking and drug possession. 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