Docket No: 4892-19 
Ref: Signature Date 
 

 
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 28 August 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, policies.   
 
You enlisted in the Marine Corps Delayed Entry Program (DEP) on 26 September 1998 but, after a positive urinalysis on 9 October 1998, you were discharged from DEP.  After waiting six months and receiving a drug waiver, you were allowed to enlist in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 19 April 1999.  On 9 February 2000, you were counseled for your behavior and performance after being absent from field day in the barracks and failing a uniform inspection.  On 26 April 2000, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for wrongful possession and use of marijuana and making a false official statement by giving the military police a false name.  On 25 May 2000, you received a second NJP for wrongful use of methamphetamine.  Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.  After consulting counsel and waiving your procedural rights, your commanding officer recommended you be discharged with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service due to misconduct.  The discharge authority approved the recommendation and directed discharge with an OTH characterization of service by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.  On 28 July 2000, you received an OTH discharge. 
 
The Board carefully reviewed your application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered your contention that you’ve “endured the stigma of my discharge for nearly 15 years” and “some career criminals are often given less time for more egregious crimes.”  The Board also considered your post-service record as discussed in your personal statement.  Specifically, the Board considered your educational pursuits, your accomplishment of owning and operating a barber and beauty shop, and your community involvement.  The Board considered the certificates you submitted, but noted the character witness statements and “12 panel urinalysis results” you mentioned in your statement were not included in your submission.  Unfortunately, after careful consideration of your contentions, the Board did not find evidence of an error or injustice that warrants upgrading your characterization of service or sufficient evidence to warrant clemency.  Even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board found your misconduct warranted an OTH characterization of service.   
 
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 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,