DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 4472-18 Ref: Signature Date Dear This letter is in reference to your reconsideration request dated 11 May 2018. You previously petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) and were advised that your application had been disapproved. Your case was reconsidered in accordance with Board procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Sec’y of the Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). 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. Consequently, your application has been denied. Because your application was submitted with new evidence not previously considered, the Board found it in the interest of justice to review your application. Your current request has been carefully examined by a three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session on 22 July 2019. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application and all material submitted in support of your application. Your presented as new evidence, a statement that your fifth amendment rights were violated under double jeopardy, you were charged and sentenced twice for the same offenses, and denied treatment despite a medical officer’s recommendation that your receive level III alcohol rehabilitation treatment. Additionally, you state that, after you failed a drug test for marijuana, you signed a Drug and Alcohol Abuse Statement of Understanding that stated, in part, that “If I am found to have positive test indications of marijuana use, I shall be strongly warned, and if any follow-on test indicate continued drug abuse, it will be cause for my separation from the Navy” and that you were never warned or offered assistance. The Board found that you were discharged from the Navy due to commission of a serious offense, not due to drug abuse. You stated that part of your special court-martial (SPCM) sentence included level III alcohol rehabilitation treatment, which you never received. The Board found that you were sentenced to a period of confinement, a forfeiture of pay, and a reduction in paygrade. Further, alcohol rehabilitation treatment is not a form of punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, so it would not have been part of your SPCM sentence. You also claim that, while in the brig with no resources, charges were brought up again to the Chief of Naval Personnel despite the fact that your court-martial was final, approved and executed, an inequitable decision was made, and you were sentenced yet again for the same offenses, and given an other than honorable (OTH) discharge. The Board found that a punitive discharge was not adjudged at your SPCM, and your commanding officer made a decision to administratively separate you from the Navy, and recommended that you receive an OTH discharge. Administrative separation proceedings are non-judicial in nature and, therefore, not subject to the prohibitions of double jeopardy. Finally, you explained that the military judge at your SPCM stated, in part, that you were not a candidate for punitive discharge and adjudged punishment only. The Board found that the military judge did, in fact, adjudge only punishment, and felt the charges did not warrant a punitive discharge. However, your commanding officer’s decision to recommend that you be administratively separated from the Navy was an administrative action, not punishment, which is routinely initiated when a punitive discharge is not adjudged by a court-martial. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board determined that the information that you provided, even though not previously considered by the Board, was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. It is regretted that the circumstances of your reconsideration petition are such that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission of new matters, which will require you to complete and submit a new DD Form 149. New matters are those not previously presented to or considered by the Board. In the absence of new matters for reconsideration, the decision of the Board is final, and your only recourse would be to seek relief, at no cost to the Board, from a court of appropriate jurisdiction. 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.