DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No: 8139-16 
NOV 29 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 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 25 October 2017. 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 of your application, together 
with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval record and 
applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 

You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period ofactive duty on 14 November 1996. You 
served for three years and three months without disciplinary incident, but on 14 March 2000, you 
were notified that you tested positive for wrongful use ofmethamphetamine. Your commanding 
officer chose to dispose ofyour misconduct my administrative separation. On 18 August 2000, 
you were recommended for a Medical Officer's Evaluation (MOE) for and assessment ofyour 
addiction, but you refused. On 28 September 2000, you were the subject ofa Competency 
Review Board that directed a reduction in rank to E-4. Subsequently, you were notified of 
pending administrative separation by reason ofmisconduct due to drug abuse at which time you 
waived your procedural rights to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an 
administrative discharge board (ADB). Your commanding officer recommended discharge 
under other than honorable (OTH) conditions by reason ofmisconduct due to drug abuse. The 
discharge authority approved the recommendation and directed separation under other than 
honorable conditions by reason ofmisconduct and that you shall be reduced in paygrade to E-3. 
On 31 October 2000, you were discharged. 

After careful and conscientious consideration ofthe entire record, the Board found the evidence 
submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and your assertion that the drug 
screen was contaminated by the lab. The Board noted you did provided a urine sample to your 
command on 2 March 2000, which tested positive for methamphetamine. The next day on 
3'March 2000, you provided another urine sample which tested negative. The Board also noted 
that the record shows that you were notified ofand waived your procedural right to present your 
case to an administrative board (ADB). In doing so, you gave up your first and best opportunity 
to assert that the drug sample was contaminated, and advocate for retention or a more favorable 
characterization ofservice. In regard to your assertion, the Board relies on a presumption of 
regularity to support the official actions ofpublic officers and, in the absence ofsubstantial 
evidence to the contrary, will presume that they have properly discharged their official duties. 
Your allegations, unsupported by submission ofdocumentation failed to overcome. that 
presumption. Accordingly, your application has been denied. 

Regarding your concern about eligibility for healthcare whether or not you are eligible for 
benefits is a matter under the cognizance ofthe Department ofVeterans Affairs (DV A), and you 
should contact the nearest office ofDVA concerning your right to apply for benefits. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken 
at this time. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission of 
new and material evidence. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board. 
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