DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 8808-18 Date: Ref Signature Dear This is in reference to your application of 28 August 2018 for correction of your naval record pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application has been denied. 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 three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 November 2019. The names and votes of the 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 of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, relevant portions of your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active service on 20 March 1989. On 10 April 1989, you were briefed in the Navy’s policy regarding drug and alcohol abuse. On 22 May 1991, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for failure to go to your prescribed place of duty. On 14 February 1992, you were counseled regarding your misconduct. On 18 June 1992, you were arrested by civil authorities for driving under the influence (DUI). On 29 July 1992, you received your second NJP for wrongful use of marijuana, at which point, you were notified of an administrative action to separate you from the naval service by reason of misconduct-drug abuse. On 4 August 1992, you consulted with counsel and elected to have your case presented to an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 27 August 1992, your ADB convened and recommended your separation with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service by reason of misconduct-drug abuse. On 15 October 1992, your commanding officer recommended your discharge by reason of misconduct-drug abuse. On 4 November 1992, the separation authority approved and directed your discharge. You were discharged, on 20 November 1992, with an OTH characterization of service by reason of misconduct-drug abuse. The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors in your case, including your desire to upgrade your discharge and contention you were not offered rehabilitation following your positive test result for marijuana use. You state, you had final trait of 3.6 and served in a hazardous duty location during your enlistment. All servicemembers separated for drug abuse are screened for drug dependency and provided the option of treatment prior to separation. Although your complete administrative separation documents were not available, the Board relies on a presumption of regularity to support the official actions of public officers and, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, will presume that they have properly discharged their official duties. The Board presumed the foregoing in your case and considered your total service in the Navy, notwithstanding, the Board concluded the seriousness of your misconduct outweighed your desire to upgrade your discharge. 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 the submission of new matters, which will require you to complete and submit a new DD Form 149. New matters are those not previously presented to or considered by the Board. In 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 of probable material error or injustice.