Docket No: 376-20
Ref: Signature Date                                                                                                                  
 
Dear .   
 
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Section 1552 of Title 10, United States Code.  After careful and conscientious consideration of relevant portions of your naval record and your application, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.  Consequently, your application has been denied. 
 
Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and consider your application on its merits.  A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 October 2020.  The names and votes of the panel members will be furnished upon request.  Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of the Board.  Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, to include the 25 July 2018 guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness regarding equity, injustice or clemency determinations (Wilkie Memo). 
 
You enlisted in the Navy and served honorably from 8 February 1983 until 26 January 1989.  You reenlisted and began a second period of enlistment on 27 January 1989.  On 18 September 1991, you tested positive for THC at a command urinalysis.  A second urinalysis on 30 September 1991 resulted in positive tests for THC and cocaine.  On 15 October 1991, you received nonjudicial punishment for wrongful use of a controlled substance (two violations).  You appeared before an administrative separation board on 5 December 1991.  The administrative separation board recommended you be discharged with an other than honorable characterization of service.  Your counsel submitted a letter of deficiency following the proceedings; nonetheless, your Commanding Officer recommended you be discharged with an other than honorable characterization of service.  You were separated from the Navy on 20 December 1991, on the basis of misconduct-drug abuse, and received an other than honorable discharge and a reentry code of RE-4. 
 
In your application for consideration, you ask for an upgrade to your other than honorable discharge to an honorable service characterization and a change to your narrative reason for separation to “Secretarial Authority.”  You provide a brief in support of your application in which you state that you performed well in the Navy, earned multiple awards and commendations, and deployed twice in support of Operation Desert Shield/Storm.  You contend that you did not knowingly ingest cocaine while on active duty.  After testing positive, you asked for all of the urinalysis documentation (which was never provided) and assert that the dates for testing did not match the dates for which you submitted to a urinalysis.  You claim that without the chain of custody, it cannot be established that your specimen was not adulterated or substituted.  You contend that the administrative separation board findings were not supported by sufficient evidence, and the recommendation of the board and resultant separation was a material error.  As a matter of justice and clemency, you request that your discharge be upgraded.  You ask that the Board take into consideration the stigma of your other than honorable discharge as well as the post-service deprivations you have suffered.  You acknowledge the wrongfulness of your conduct and regret your actions.  You state that the conduct that resulted in your discharge from the Navy was inconsistent with your personal standards and contend that your Enlisted Performance Evaluation Reports are more indicative of your character.  Since your discharge, you have been employed for over 15 years with the same financial company as a Senior Network Administrator, are married, and have 3 step-children and 7 grandchildren.  You also submitted several character letters on your behalf. 
 
The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case in accordance with the Wilkie Memo.  These included, but were not limited to, your desire to upgrade your discharge, your favorable contributions to the Navy, your assertions regarding the chain of custody of your urinalysis, your post-discharge achievements, contention that you have been a productive member of society since your discharge, and your acknowledgment of wrongfulness regarding your conduct and actions.  The Board found that the seriousness of wrongful use of THC while on active duty was a sufficient basis for the other than honorable discharge and your narrative reason for separation of misconduct.  The Board concluded that the positive results of the urinalysis for THC, combined with the administrative separation board’s findings and recommendation, and your Commanding Officer’s recommendation supported the issuance of the other than honorable discharge on the basis of misconduct-drug abuse.  Additionally, based upon this review, the Board concluded the potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief.  Specifically, the Board determined that your misconduct, as evidenced by your NJP and administrative board, outweighed the mitigating factors.  Accordingly, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief. 
 
You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon 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 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,