Docket No: 9768-18 
Ref: Signature Date 

Dear 

This letter is in reference to your reconsideration request dated 14 August 2018. You previously 
petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) and were advised that your 
applications had been disapproved. Your case was reconsidered in accordance with Board 
procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Sec’y of the Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). 
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence 
submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. 
Consequently, your application has been denied. 

Because your application was submitted with new matters not previously considered, the Board 
found it in the interest of justice to review your application. Your current request has been 
carefully examined by a three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 8 July 2019. The names and votes of the members of the panel 
will be furnished upon request. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of 
your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of 
your naval record, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 

You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 1 December 1993. On 22 
February 1994, you tested positive for THC and received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 
25 March 1994 for violating Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 112a for wrongful use of 
marijuana. Also on 25 March 1994, you were informed that you were being considered for 
discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse and advised of your rights. You waived 
your right to consult with counsel and to have your case heard by an administrative discharge 
board. You were evaluated by the medical officer on 1 April 1994 and found to be a drug 
abuser, but not drug dependent. On 13 April 1994, your commanding officer forwarded your 
administrative separation documentation to the Commander, 
and recommended that you receive an other than honorable (OTH) discharge. On 21 April 1994, 
the approved your separation and directed that you be 
separated within five working days after your command received his endorsement. The 
Commanding Officer, , forwarded the 21 April 1994 letter 
to your officer in charge on a date in May 1994 that is illegible on the document in your record. 
You were discharged from the Navy on 2 June 1994 with an OTH characterization of service and 
a reentry code (RE) of RE-4. 

You request an upgrade to your characterization of service from other than honorable to 
honorable, a change to the narrative reason for separation to “secretarial authority,” a change to 
an RE-1 reentry code, and a change to your separation code to reflect an honorable discharge on 
the basis of secretarial authority. You noted two errors in your separation process including that 
you were not properly advised by your chain of command regarding your right to consult with 
counsel, and there was an inexplicable and unnecessary delay in processing your separation until 
you had reached 182 days of service. You also ask that your post-service actions be taken into 
account when determining if corrective action is warranted on the basis of justice. You have 
focused on improving yourself through education and hard work, have a family and a small 
business, and your one momentary lapse in judgment within the first 90 days of active duty 
service continues to cause your family to suffer greatly. 

The Board, in its review of your entire service record and application, carefully considered all 
potentially mitigating factors, including the short length of service prior to your misconduct, the 
length of time that passed between the 22 February misconduct and your 2 June 1994 separation, 
and your contentions of procedural error and injustice. The Board also noted your post-service 
actions and considered the impact of your current discharge on both you and your family. The 
Board reviewed the administrative separation documentation and noted that your record indicates 
that you were properly notified of your procedural rights and waived your right to speak to 
counsel. Although you alleged that your chain of command discouraged you from speaking to 
an attorney, you submitted no evidence to support this contention. In the absence of evidence to 
the contrary, the Board presumes that government officials acted in good faith in executing their 
duties. The Board further noted that your length of service did not preclude your chain of 
command from seeking an OTH characterization on the basis of misconduct, and the procedural 
timeline does not suggest an inordinate delay in the processing of your separation. The Board 
concluded that the positive urinalysis was a sufficient basis for your chain of command to 
recommend an OTH characterization of service, and the length of time that it took to process 
your separation was neither erroneous nor unjust. The Board, thus, determined that your 
discharge was without error or injustice and that corrective action is not warranted. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your reconsideration petition 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 the absence of 
new matters for reconsideration, the decision of the Board is final, and your only recourse would 
be to seek relief, at no cost to the Board, from a court of appropriate jurisdiction. 

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.