DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
Docket No: 4411-17 
OCT 09 2017 

Dear

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions ofTitle 10, United States Code, 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 application on its merits. A three­member panel of the Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 June 2017. The names and votes of the members ofthe 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 of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 

Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding ofthe issues involved. Therefore, the Board determined a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 

You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 24 June 1996. On 13 October 1998, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for wrongful use ofa controlled substance and soliciting another to commit an offense. Your appeal was denied based on the finding there was sufficient evidence for the Commanding Officer to find you guilty of wrongful use of a controlled substance and ofsoliciting another to commit an offense. Your record is incomplete, in that it does not contain all of the documents pertaining to your administrative discharge. Based on your Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) report of 18 July 2000, on 18 November 1998, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. After being afforded all of your procedural rights, your commanding officer recommended that you receive an other than honorable (OTH) discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. The separation authority approved this recommendation and directed separation under OTH conditions by reason of misconduct. You were discharged with an OTH characterization of service on 3 January 1999. 

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 of your application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors and your desire to upgrade your discharge to a general, under honorable conditions, characterization of service. The Board also considered your contentions that you were coerced into admitting you smoked marijuana and did not ask anyone to provide a urine sample for you. Additionally, the Board noted your urine test came back negative but concurred with the previous detem1ination that it was clear you had the intent to smoke marijuana and had even confessed to smoking it frequently prior to the time in question. The Board concluded the seve1ity of your misconduct clearly supported the commanding officer's decision to process you administratively for an OTH discharge. Additionally, the Board noted that the record shows you were notified ofand waived your procedural right to present your case to an administrative separation board. In doing so, you gave up your first and best opportunity to advocate for retention or a more favorable characterization of service. Accordingly, your application has been denied. 

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. ew evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board. 

ln this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity 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