Docket No: 4727-21 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. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 September 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). The Board determined that your personal appearance, with or without counsel, would not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. Your record indicates your acknowledgement of pre-service civil court action, specifically, for breaking and entering in which you were placed on one (1) year probation. You enlisted in the U.S. Navy and began a period of active duty on 29 May 1980. From 18 January 1982 until 11 July 1982, you were involved in five civil actions while stationed abroad in for breach of peace, assault on a female on two separate occasions, another assault, and possession of marijuana. On 12 May 1982, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for possession of .5 grams of hashish and two specifications of unauthorized absences (UA). As a result of your misconduct abroad, you were placed on international hold pending civil charges; however, on 6 August 1982, you were dropped from international hold and civil charges were dismissed contingent upon your immediate removal from Jurisdiction. You were transferred out of on 1 September 1982. On 19 November 1982, you participated in a command-directed urinalysis and the results came back positive for THC (marijuana). That same day you acknowledged your understanding concerning drug abuse. On 24 November 1982, you received NJP for two specifications of communicating a threat, provoking words, assault on a sentinel, two specifications of failure to obey a lawful order, and failure to obey a lawful command. On 20 December 1982, you received a counseling for your five civil convictions and two NJPs. You were notified of retention and advised that further deficiencies may result in disciplinary action and in processing for administrative discharge. On 5 January 1983, you received NJP for three specifications of UA. Subsequently, you participated in a command-directed urinalysis and the results came back positive for THC. On 17 January 1983, the Director, Counseling and Assistance Center, recommended you be processed for discharge. On 2 May 1983, you were notified of pending administrative separation by reason of misconduct, specifically, drug abuse, commission of a serious offense (COSO), and civilian conviction. You elected to consult with counsel and to present your case before an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 19 May 1983, an ADB was held and the board found by a vote of 3-0, you committed misconduct due to drug abuse, COSO, and civilian conviction; however, recommended a suspended separation with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service for a period of twelve (12) months. On 1 June 1983, you participated in a command-directed urinalysis, and again, the results came back positive for THC. Subsequently, you received NJP for wrongful use of a controlled substance. On 14 July 1983, the medical officer determined you were not dependent on THC or alcohol and your rehabilitation for further useful service was poor. On 3 August 1983, you received NJP for two specifications for wrongful use of THC on board the On 18 July 1983, the Commanding Officer concurred with the ADB’s findings; however, did not concur with suspension of discharge and recommended you be separated with an OTH characterization of service based on your continued drug abuse. On 3 August 1983, the discharge authority directed your discharge with an OTH characterization of service by reason misconduct due to drug use. You were discharged with an OTH characterization of service on 15 August 1983. 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 desire to upgrade your characterization of service based on your contentions that you have been an upstanding member of society and you would like to use some of the benefits you earned. The Board noted you did not provide any post-advocacy documents or character statements for clemency consideration. Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief. Specifically, the Board determined that your repeated misconduct in a foreign country and your continued drug usage, despite several opportunities given to you to correct your deficiencies, outweighed these mitigating factors. 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 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, 9/24/2021 Executive Director