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

Docket No: 2037-19 
Date: Ref Signature 

Dear 
This is in reference to your application 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 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 18 March 2020.  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, together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval record, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 

You reenlisted in the Navy and continued a period of active service on 19 October 1992.  On 25 May 1993, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for two specifications of wrongful use of cocaine.  On 28 May 1993, you were notified of the initiation of administrative separation proceedings by reason of misconduct-drug abuse, at which point, you waived counsel and your procedural rights.  On the same day, your commanding officer recommended that you be discharged with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service by reason of misconduct-drug abuse.  On 4 June 1993, you underwent a substance abuse evaluation.  You were determined to be not drug/alcohol dependent or in need for rehabilitation.  On 16 June 1993, you were discharged in absentia with an OTH characterization of service by reason of misconduct-drug abuse. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such your desire to upgrade your discharge so that you may receive medical benefits and the return of your Montgomery GI Bill.  Additionally, you contend, you were informed an upgrade would be possible at a later date, and you had no option for treatment.  In regard to your contention of no treatment, your command was under no obligation to send you to drug rehabilitation treatment unless it was determined, by competent medical authority, that you were drug dependent.  There is no documentation in your record that shows you were drug dependent.  The Board determined that the severity of your drug related misconduct outweighed your current desire to upgrade your discharge.  The Board, in its review, discerned no probable material error or injustice in the discharge.  There is no provision of law or in Navy regulations that allows for an upgrade to the characterization of service solely due to the passage of time.  Similarly, there is no provision of law or in Navy regulations that grants an upgrade in the characterization of service solely on the issue of obtaining veterans benefits.  The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the Board.  You should contact the nearest office of the VA concerning your right to apply for benefits. 

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. 

Sincerely,