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

Docket No: 3896-19
ReF: Signature Date

Dear      :

This is in reference to your application of 31 March 2019 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 19 May 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, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.
 
You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 2 June 1980.  From 15 July 1982 to 21 November 1983, you received three non-judicial punishments (NJP) for two specifications of failure to go to at prescribed time to appointed place of duty, assault, wrongful use of marijuana, drinking in a military vehicle, and drunk on duty.  On 15 January 1984, you tested positive for marijuana on a command directed urinalysis.  Subsequently, you were notified of an administrative action to separate you from the naval service for misconduct due to drug abuse.  After you waived your rights, your Commanding Officer (CO) recommended discharge under other than honorable (OTH) conditions for misconduct due to drug abuse.  The discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed separation under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct.  On 15 March 1984, you were so discharged. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors in your case, including your desire to upgrade your discharge, contentions that your urinalysis was foiled because you never submitted to bloodwork and you were told your discharge would change to general.  The Board also noted your contentions that you have been clean for 30 years, worked as a volunteer for Veterans in prison, volunteered at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital, and volunteered at narcotics anonymous meetings.  The Board concluded that your misconduct and violation of the Navy’s drug policy outweighed your desire upgrade your discharge. 

In regard to your contentions that your urinalysis was foiled because you never submitted to bloodwork and you were told your discharge would change to general, the Board noted that there is no evidence in your record, and you submitted none, to support your contentions.  Regarding your contentions that you have been clean for 30 years, worked as a volunteer for Veterans in prison, volunteered at the VA hospital, and volunteered at narcotics anonymous meetings, the Board noted while commendable, your post service conduct does not excuse your conduct while enlisted in the Marine Corps or the basis for 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. 

Sincerely,