DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No: 808-16 
FEB 0 3 2017 

Dear 

This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the 
provisions oftitle 10 ofthe 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 of limitations and consider your case on its merits. A three-member 
panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your 
application on 1November2016. The names and votes of the members of the 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 ofthe entire record, the Board found the evidence 
submitted was insufficient to establish the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. 

You acknowledged the Navy Drug Abuse policy on 28 January 1981, when you were completing 
the paperwork for enlistment. On 9 February 1981, you entered the Delayed Entry Program 
(DEP). On 11May1981, you entered active duty. On 18 June 1981, you were found guilty at 
Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP) for a violation ofarticle 117-provoking speeches and or 
gestures-and a violation of article 128-assault on another member ofthe naval service. On 7 
February 1982, you were convicted in a civilian court for public lewdness. On 26 March 1985, 
you tested positive for cannabinoids. On 16 April 1985, you were diagnosed as a "recreational 
drug user." On 16 May 1985, you were found guilty at NJP for violation of article 1 l 2awrongful 
use ofmarijuana. There is no indication that you appealed this contained within your 
record. On 24 May 1985, you underwent a psychological test and interview, which revealed a 
"lO year history of cannabis abuse with no desire or motivation for rehabilitation and [a] clearly 
expressed intentions to continue using marijuana." On 30 May 1985, you were notified of 
pending administrative separation, for wrongfully using marijuana. After consulting with a 
qualified military lawyer, you waived your rights, including the right to present your case to an 
Administrative Discharge Board (ADB). On 2 July 1985, your Commanding Officer 
recommended you receive an Other Than Honorable (OTH) discharge for wrongfully using 
marijuana. The convening authority approved the discharge. On 6 August 1985, you were 
discharged with an Other Than Honorable characterization ofservice. Lastly, On 11 September 
1997, your discharge was reviewed by the Navy Discharge Review Board (NDRB), which 
decided no change in your discharge characterization was warranted. 

The Board, in its review ofyour entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially 
mitigating factors, including your contention that you were under the influence ofintoxicants 
when you engaged in misconduct, your contention that you were in an automobile accident and 
the accident played a role in your misconduct, and your desire to upgrade your discharge. 
However, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case 
given the seriousness of your misfonduct. In this regard, the Board concluded the severity of 
your convictions outweighed your desire to upgrade your discharge. Accordingly, your 
application has been denied. 

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 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 of an official naval record, the burden is on the 
applicant to demonstrate the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 


Executive Director