Docket No: 4710-20
Ref: Signature Date                                                                                       
  
   
Dear  :  
 
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552.  After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.  Consequently, your application was 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 for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 November 2020.  The names and votes of the members of the panel 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 this 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. 
  
You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 6 November 1980.  Between 3 September 1982 and 13 April 1983, you tested positive for marijuana on three separate urinalyses.  Your record shows that you received non-judicial punishment on 22 October 1982, in connection with the first positive urinalysis.  On 17 March 1983 you began a period of unauthorized absence (UA) that lasted 4 days.  On 16 May 1983, you consulted counsel and requested a Separation in Lieu of Trial (SILT) in order to avoid trial by court-martial.   On 1 June 1983, the Staff Judge Advocate to the General Court-Martial Convening Authority (GCMCA) found the SILT request legally sufficient.  On 2 June 1983, the GCMCA approved the SILT and directed you be administratively separated with an Under Other than Honorable Conditions (OTH) discharge.  On 10 June 1983, you were discharged with an OTH.  On 2 May 1989, the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) reviewed your discharge, and noted that there was an indication of the possibility of a procedural error in the first urinalysis in which you tested positive, on 22 October 1982.  Nonetheless, the NDRB determined that there was no impropriety or inequity in your discharge, considering the additional instances of drug use, the UA period and your request for a SILT.   
 
You have requested an upgrade of your discharge.  In your Petition, you stated that you received a letter from the government advising you that what they did to you was unconstitutional.  In addition, you asserted that you have worked your whole life and just want to make it right.  The Board concluded these assertions were not sufficient to warrant a change to your discharge status, given the misconduct detailed in your service record.  In reviewing your case, the Board specifically did not consider your NJP dated 22 October, noting that a 25 November 1986 Commandant of the Marine Corps letter indicated the NJP for the use of illegal drugs was possibly in error due to a procedural error.  However, the Board noted that you tested positive on separate urinalyses in January 1983 and March 1983.  Upon reviewing the all of your assertions and contentions, as well as your service record, the Board concluded that there was insufficient support for the relief requested.   
  
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 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,