DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
Docket No. 8191-15 
HAY 2 0 2016 


Dear 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 use 1552. 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 case on its merits. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 May 2016. 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, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 

A review of your record shows that you entered active duty with the Navy on 14 May 1987. You received non-judicial punishment (NJP) on 6 July 1989 for failure to obey a lawful order and on 9 November 1989 for wrongful use of cocaine. As a result of your drug abuse, you were notified of administrative separation processing on 15 November 1989. You waived your rights on 20 November 1989 and were discharged on 12 January 1990 with an Other than Honorable characterization of service. On 9 April 1992, the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) denied your request for an upgrade to the characterization of your service citing the seriousness of your misconduct. 
The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve an upgrade to the characterization of your discharge. You contend that the first NJP was improper because your vision prevented you from seeing garbage in the trashcans of a bathroom you were directed to clean. In addition, you allege that your eye condition and the fact english was a second language resulted in harassment and persecution by your chain of command. You state that this improper treatment resulted in the development of multiple disabilities. Finally, you state that your cocaine use involved a single use incident and can't reasonably be interpreted as drug abuse. Unfortunately, the Board did not agree with your rati onale fo~ relief . First, you offered no substantiating evidence to support any of your allegations of mistreatment. The B9ard was not inclined to change your record based onl y on your assertions . Second,• your eye condition affected only one eye and did not leave you complet:ely blind and unable to see trash out of your other eye. Therefore the Board was not convinced by your arguments regarding your first NJ·p. Third, a single wrongful use of a controlled substance without aut~orization qualifies for mandatory administrative separation process:ing in the service regulations. The Board concluded that you were properly processed for wrongful use of cocaine based on your admission. ! Furthermore, the ·Board concurred with the NDRB rationale for denyipg your characterization upgrade based on the seriousness of your d rug use. The fact you downplayed t he seriousness of your misconduc:t further convinced the Board that you do not take responsibility fO,r your misconduct and do not deserve clemency. Finally, even though there was no evidence presented that supports any of your alleged disapilities, the Board concluded that even if qualifying disabilities e'xisted, you would not have been eligible for disability processirig since your administrative separation for wrongful drug·use '.would have superseded any disability processing. Accordingly, the Board was unable to find an error or injustice warranting a correctiotj to your record and denied your application. The names and votes ;of the members of the panel will be furni shed upon request. 

It is regretteq that the circumst,ances of your case are such t hat favorable q.ction cannot be taken.; You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon sub~ission 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 important to keep in mind that a presumption of r egularity attach~s to all official records. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on t he app~icant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injus~ice. 
Sincerely, 

Executive Director 
2