DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 

Docket No: 1044-16 
JAN 06 2017 

Dear : 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the 
provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552. 

Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of 
justice to waive the statute oflimitations and consider your application on its merits. A threemember 
panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 26 August 2016. The names and votes ofthe members ofthe 
panel will be furnished upon request. Your allegations oferror and injustice were reviewed in 
accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings ofthis 
Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted ofyour application, together 
with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, 
regulations, and policies. 

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence 
submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. 

You reenlisted in the Navy and continued a period ofactive duty on 20 September 1993. Youˇ 
served without disciplinary action until 7 December 1993, when you received nonjudicial 
punishment (NJP) for wrongful use and possession ofa controlled substance. In view ofthe 
foregoing, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason ofmisconduct. You were 
advised ofyour rights and elected to present your case to an administrative discharge board 
(ADB). The ADB found that you committed misconduct due to the commission ofa serious 
offense, but recommended that you be retained in the Navy. However, prior to completion of the 
administrative discharge process, you received two additional NJP's on 9 April and 8 July 1994 
for unauthorized absence and wrongful use and possession of a controlled substance, 
respectively. In view of the additional NJPs, your commanding officer again initiated 
administrative discharge action by reason ofmisconduct. You did not consult counsel and you 
waived your procedural rights. Your commanding officer recommended an other than honorable 
(OTH) discharge by reason ofmisconduct as evidenced by your drug use, and forwarded your 
case. The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed an OTH 
discharge by reason ofmisconduct for drug use. On 23 August 1994, you were so discharged. 

The Board, in its review ofyour entire record anlapplication, carefully considered your desire to 
upgrade your discharge. The Board also considered potentially mitigating factors, such as your 
lack ofjudgment and your assertion that you made a mistake. Nevertheless, the Board 
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization ofyour discharge, given 
the seriousness ofyour misconduct which resulted in three NJPs. With regard to your assertion 
that you made a mistake, the Board noted that after your first drug offense, an ADB 
recommended you be retained in the Navy. However, you committed additional misconduct as 
evidenced by another drug offense and UA. The Board noted that you were in violation ofthe 
Navy policy of"zero tolerance." Further, you were responsible for your actions and drug abuse 
is not excusable. Accordingly, your application has been denied. 

It is regretted that the circumstances ofyour case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. 
You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission ofnew and material 
evidence within one year from the date ofthe Board's decision. New evidence is evidence not 
previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in your case. In this regard, it is 
important to keep in mind that a presumption ofregularity attaches to all official records. 

Consequently, when applying for a correction ofan official naval record, the burden is on the 
applicant to demonstrate the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 


Executive Director