Docket No: 8055-20 
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 13 January 2021.  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). 
 
The Board determined that your personal appearance, with or without counsel, would not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 
 
You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 17 June 1991.  Based on the information contained in your record, you provided a sworn statement on 14 October 1992, to the Naval Investigative Service (NIS) admitting to the use of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD).  Subsequently, on 22 March 1993, you were notified that you were being recommended for administrative discharge from the naval service by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.  You were advised of, and waived your procedural rights, including your right to consult with and be represented by military counsel, and your right to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB).  Your commanding officer (CO) forwarded your package to the separation authority (SA) recommending your administrative discharge from the naval service with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service.  The SA approved the recommendation and directed your separation from the naval service with an OTH characterization of service.  On 17 June 1993, you were so discharged. 
    
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 and contention that you were a target of a witch-hunt by NIS; you did not do anything wrong, you were falsely accused and the charges were eventually dropped.  Your further assert that the incident ruined any chances of your advancement, and caused you to seek an early separation to find a new career.  The Board noted you did not submit any documentation or advocacy letters to be considered by the board in support of your petition.  Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief.  Specifically, the Board determined that your misconduct, as evidenced by your admission to the use of a controlled substance outweighed these mitigating factors.      
 
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,