Docket No: 5680-19 
Ref: Signature Date 


Dear : 
 
This is in reference to your application for correction of your son’s 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 15 July 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 son’s naval record, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 
 
Your son reenlisted in the Navy on 1 September 1983.  On 30 September 1983, he received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for the wrongful use of provoking words.  On 30 August 1984, a special court-martial (SPCM) convicted him of two specifications of wrongful use of marijuana.  Subsequently, he was notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.  On 8 November 1984, he waived his procedural rights.  On 18 November 1984, he declined to participate in a drug/alcohol rehabilitation program.  On 27 November 1984, his commanding officer (CO) recommended discharge under other than honorable (OTH) conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.  The discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed separation under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct.  On 18 December 1984, he was discharged. 
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your son’s discharge, your contentions that he requested help and assistance but minimum rehabilitation programs were available, and he did not receive the help he requested.  The Board also noted your contention that he received an honorable discharge prior to reenlisting.  In this regard, the Board concluded that your son’s misconduct and violation of the Navy’s “Zero Tolerance” drug policy outweighed your desire to have his discharge upgraded. 
 
In regard to your contentions that your son requested help and assistance but minimum rehabilitation programs were available, and he did not receive the help he requested, the Board noted that the record contains documented evidence which is contrary to your contentions.  The record shows that on 18 November 1984, your son declined to participate in a drug/alcohol rehabilitation program offered by the Navy.  The Board also noted that the record shows that he was notified of and waived his right to present his case to an administrative discharge board.  In doing so, he gave up his first and best opportunity to advocate for retention or a more favorable characterization of service.  Regarding your contention that your son received an honorable discharge prior to reenlisting, the Board noted that a Sailor’s service is characterized at the time of discharge based on performance during the current enlistment. 
 
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, 
 
9/7/2020
                                                                      

Executive Director