DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
Docket No. 7647-15 

HAY 2 01016 


Dear 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552. Your case was reconsidered in accordance with procedures that conform to 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 {D.D.C. 2004) . . You were 
previ ously denied relief by this Board ·on 13 Oc.tober 2010. 

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in execut ive session , considered your application on 29 April 2016 . Your allegations of error and i njustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regul ations 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, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. However'· after careful and conscientious consideration .of the entire record, the Board . determined that while your request does not warrant relief. Accordingly, your request has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. 

The Board carefully con~idered your arguments that you deserve an upgrade to your characterization of service and a disability discharge due to the resi dual effects of the head injury you suffered on 16 March 1994. You.contend that your marijuana use that resulted in non­judicial punishment on 9 June 1994 was to alleviate the pain from your head injury and that you were unfit for continued naval service due to the injury. Unfortunately, the Board dis.agreed with your rationale for relief. First, the Board determined that your other than Honor able characterization of service is appropriate in light of your t wo incidents of wrongful drug use; your first being a wrongful amphetamine use in 1993. The Board also noted that your contenti on that you used marijuana to alleviate pain is inconsistent with your original statement that your use was experimental after being offered the drug by your r oommate. These two factors combined to convince the Board that your characterization of service should not change . Second, the Board decided that you do not qualify for a disability discharge because the evidence shows that you were declared fit for full duty on 29 April 1994 after a full medi cal evaluation by Naval Hospi tal I n addition, even if evi qence existed t hat you · suffer ed from a condition warranting referral to the Disability Evaluation System, misconduct processing would have superseded the disability processing according to applicable regulations. Si nce the Board det~rmined you were responsible for-your misconduct, it concluded you were properly processed for misconduct vice a disabili ty. Therefore, the Board determined no error or injustice exists in your case and affirmed the previous decision of the Board. 

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 t o making its decision in this case. 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 r ecord, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate t he existence of probable material error or injustice. 
Sincerely, 

Executive Dir ector