DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
Docket No . 5912-15 
MAV 2. 0 7016 



This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552. 
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 March 2016 . Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of th1s Board. Documentary mate:dal considered by the Board c.onsisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 

A review of your record shows you entered active duty with the Navy in February 2008. In March 2011, you injured· your hand result ing in the development of related infection and ulcers that required long-term treatment into 2012. On 8 June 2012, non-judicial punishment was imposed on you after you were found to have wrongfully possessed spice in violation of a general order. This resulted in your administrative separation processing for misconduct. After waiving your right to an administrative separation board, you were ordered discharged. However, a separation physical determined you were not medically qualified for separation. As a result, you remained on active duty until 11 April 2013 when you were discharged with an Other than Honorable characterization of service for commission of a serious offense. 

The Board carefully considered your arguments that you were wrongfully discharged for several reasons. You contend that you were improperly processed for separation due to misconduct since you were not competent to waive your right to an administrative separation board. In addition, you state that you suffered from a physical disability that should have been referred through the Disability Evaluation system. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. First, the Board found sufficient evidence to support a finding of gui lt at your NJP. As l aid out in the preliminary report that discusses the 26 May 2012 traffic ·stop, Spice was found in the driver's side door pocket and a pipe was found in your pants . Thi s fact combined with the general order prohibiting the possession of Spice onboard the Naval installation was sufficient for a trier of fact .to conclude, by a preponderance of the evidence, that you violated the order. Second, the Board did not find evidence to support your contention that you were incompetent to waive your rights regarding your administrative separation board. According to the f light surgeon assigned t o your command, you were pres cr ibed 20 tablets of 7.5 mg hydrocodone and 325 mg acetaminophen for your condition : According to the flight surgeon, this amount of narcotics would not degrade your mental capacity to a point where you were not able to understand and exercise your rights. In addition, the fact . you were counseled to seek legal counsel and chose not to do so convinced the Board that you knowingly waived your rights . Fi nally, the Board also noted that your case was reviewed by the General Court Martial Convening Authority as _part of the normal course of required review and as part of an Article 138 complaint. As a result, the Board felt you were afforded a sufficient level of due process prior to your discharge. Finally, since the Board concluded the NJP was supported by the evidence, your processing for misconduct would have superseded any disability processing. So even if you were unfit for continued naval service due to your condition, you would not have been eligible to be considered by a medical board or the Physical Evaluation Board because you were pending separation for misconduct. Accordingly, the Board was unable to find an error or injustice warranting a correction to your record and denied your application·. Your request for a personal appearance before the Board has also been denied. The Board felt it had sufficient evidence to make a decision in your case and your presence was not required. The names and votes of t he 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 evidence within one year from the date of the Board's decision. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. In this ·regard, ·it is i mportant to keep in ·mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records. Consequent ly, 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 injust ice. 
Sincerely, 

Executive Director 
2