DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No: 3077-17 
AUG 21 2017 

Dear : 

This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the 
provisions ofTitle 10, 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 three
member panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 4 May 2017. The names and votes ofthe members of the panel 
will be furnished upon request. Your allegations of error 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. 

You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period ofactive duty on 10 March 2003. On 
18 February 2004, you tested positive for marijuana use. On 8 May 2004, you were convicted by 
summary court-martial (SCM) of wrongful use ofmarijuana. Subsequently, administrative 
discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. After being afforded 
all ofyour procedural rights, your commanding officer recommended that ˇyou receive an other 
than honorable (OTH) discharge by reason ofmisconduct due to drug abuse. The separation 
authority approved this recommendation and directed separation under OTH conditions by reason 
ofmisconduct. You were discharged with an OTH characterization ofservice on 30 August 
2004. 

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. The 
Board, in its review ofyour application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors and 
your desire to upgrade your discharge to an honorable characterization of service and change 
your narrative reason for separation. The Board also considered your contentions that you did 
not receive the benefit ofadvice from legal counsel when notified ofthe Marine Corps' intention 
to discharge you, that the legal counsel you spoke with said "she didn't represent you" and, that 
ifyou had been properly informed ofyour rights, you would have elected to present your case to 
an administrative discharge board. You also contend that "ifyour pre-deployment conduct was 
so egregious as to warrant a characterization ofservice that is other than honorable, then the 
Marine Corps should not have deployed you." The Board also considered your contentions that 
you only used marijuana once, did not distribute marijuana or become addicted to it, your 
performance was not impacted, and that "the increasing social acceptance is an 
acknowledgement of the relative benign impact ofmarijuana use." The Board noted your 
contention that "honorable service in such an austere environment can and should outweigh a 
one-time mistake made on the eve ofdeployment." However, the Board concluded these factors 
were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case given the seriousness ofyour misconduct. The 
Board concluded the severity ofyour misconduct clearly supported the Commanding Officer's 
decision to process you administratively for an OTH discharge. Accordingly, your application 
has been denied. 

It is regretted that the circumstances ofyour 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