DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 3451-21 Ref: Signature Date Dear Petitioner: 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 relevant portions of your naval record and your application, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted 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 02 August 2021. The names and votes of the panel members 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 the 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, applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, to include the 25 July 2018 guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness regarding equity, injustice or clemency determinations (Wilkie Memo). You enlisted in the U.S. Navy Reserves (USNR) and began a period of active duty on 15 April 1988. On 19 April 1988, you were briefed on the Navy’s drug and alcohol abuse policy. On 27 April 1988, through urinalysis testing, you tested positive for marijuana while at Recruit Training Command. You were identified as a drug abuser and placed on a urinalysis surveillance program. When placed on this program you acknowledged you would be drug tested on a regular basis during the remainder of your assignment(s) in the accession training pipeline. Furthermore, you acknowledged that a second drug abuse incident would result in immediate processing for separation from the naval service. Additionally, you were issued a counseling warning acknowledging your deficiencies but retaining you in the USNR. On 25 July 1988, you received your first non-judicial punishment (NJP) for failing to obey a written order by drinking alcoholic beverages underage. You were again issued a counseling warning acknowledging your deficiencies but retaining you in the USNR. On 18 January 1989, you were issued another counseling warning for failing to report the misconduct of a fellow sailor. This counseling again acknowledged your deficiencies and retained you in the USNR. On 08 March 1989, you tested positive for marijuana while in a naval aftercare program. In March 1989, you received a second NJP for disobeying a commissioned officer, two specifications of disrespecting a petty officer, wrongful use of marijuana, and feigning illness to avoid work. On 19 April 1989, you again tested positive for marijuana during aftercare. On 02 May 1989, you received another counseling entry for being in an unauthorized absence (UA) status for three days. On 10 May 1989, you again tested positive for marijuana during aftercare. On 19 May 1989, as a result of your misconduct, an Administrative Discharge Board (ADB) hearing was held. The Board recommended you be discharged with an Other Than Honorable (OTH) characterization of service. From 24 May 1989 through 18 August 1989, you tested positive for marijuana an additional five times as well as testing positive for cocaine twice. On 25 May 1989, you received a third NJP for four specifications of UA and breaking restriction. In August 1989, Naval Military Personnel Command forwarded a message via message traffic directing a new ADB hearing be held for you consisting of commissioned officers. On 15 September 1989, a second ADB was held and the members recommended your separation with an OTH. On 05 February 1990, you were found guilty at a Special Court-Martial (SPCM) of willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer, insubordinate conduct, failure to obey order/regulation, and violating General Article 134. You were sentenced to be confined for 75 days, to forfeit $400.00 pay per month for two (2) months, and to be discharged with a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD). Unfortunately, your continued misconduct led to your fourth NJP after you were UA for two (2) days. On 06 February 1991, you were discharged with a BCD. You contend that your discharge was unjust because you were supposed to get out with an OTH but this characterization of discharge was changed to BCD due to your being arrested. You add that the charges pending from said arrest were subsequently dismissed and therefore your discharge was unjust. Additionally, you state this incident happened over 30 years ago and ask for relief as you will be released from a current prison term you are serving and will have to start life over again. The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case in accordance with the Wilkie Memo. These included, but were not limited to, your contentions noted above, and desire to upgrade your discharge. Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief. Specifically, the Board noted that after your ADB, and prior to the completion to you separation procession, your continued misconduct led to your SPCM conviction, and your BCD. Accordingly, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief. 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 is attached 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, 8/18/2021 Executive Director