D E P A R T M E N T O F T H E N A V Y
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAW ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No: 93-99
21 June 1999
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the
provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 17 June 1999. 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, your naval record and
applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the
evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.
The Board Found that you enlisted in the Navy on 6 February 1952. You received medical
treatment on 17 and 24 April 1953 for a suspected foreign body in your left eye, with
slightly decreased visual acuity. Your vision had returned to normal as of 26 January 1956,
when you underwent a pre-separation physical examination, and were found to have 20120
vision in both eyes. You did not disclose any potentially disqualifying defects at that time,
despite being admonished to do so. You were released from active duty on 30 January 1956,
and transferred to the Naval Reserve.
The Board was not persuaded that your pre-separation physical examination was deficient, or
that you were unfit by reason of physical disability at that time. It noted that the mere
presence of a retained foreign body in your eye, without evidence of unfitness to perform the
duties of your rate, would not have entitled you to disability separation or retirement.
Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the
panel will be furnished upon request.
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
and material evidence or other matter not previously 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,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2002-032
On October 17, 1956, the Chief of the Enlisted Personnel Division sent a letter to the applicant’s mother’s address stating that a “review of your record at Coast Guard Headquarters indicates that you may be entitled to an honorable discharge in lieu of the general discharge issued to you. … It is therefore requested that you forward your gen- eral discharge to the Commandant (PE-3) for review.” VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On June 14, 2002, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that...
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01055
The Informal PEB adjudicated “panuveitis, which may be a manifestation of Behcet’s disease” as unfitting, rated 20%, with likely application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of theVASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. The next day, the examiner evaluated the CI and changed the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02316-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 October 2001. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. On 25 August 1959, you were advised that your request for correction of your record to show that you were unfit for duty was denied, and you were...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 05542-97
waiver for enlistment in July 1989 but also had five or more At this time you were recurrent episodes since that time. The medical report noted, in Your record On 14 June 1990 a medical board diagnosed you with recurrent herpes The board noted that a simples keratitis of the right eye. you were so separated and assigned an On 3 July 1990 RR-3P reenlistment code.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08316-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 February 2009. On 16 May 1997, a medical board gave you diagnoses of incapacitating movements of the face, neck and eyes, obsessive compulsive disorder, and possible Tourette’e syndrome, and recommended that your case be referred to the Physical Evaluation Board. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03941
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the applicant had an existing prior to service (EPTS) eye condition that was waived at the time of his enlistment and he completed his four-year term of service receiving an honorable discharge. His eye condition was noted in his enlistment, periodic, and separation medical examinations, and there was no evidence...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01341
SEPARATION DATE: 20041104 At theophthalmology examination performed on 30 October 2003, the CI was unable to count fingers at ten inches in front of his left eye and at following ophthalmology examination dated 3 November 2003; theexaminer opined that current objective eye findings, non-physiologic vision loss could be a factor.Anophthalmology consultation dated 10 December 2003, noted the CI’s subjective complaint of inability to see from the left eye and also that “exams indicate vision...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 03933-98
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitkd in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In any event, as you were discharged from the Marine Corps on 23 October 1970, by reason of unfitness, you would not have been entitled to disability evaluation even if you had suffered from a condition considered disabling by the Department of the Navy. Consequently, when applying for a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 05329-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 April 2001. In this rcgard, the Board noted that in order for a service member to qualify for disability retirement, he must be found unfit to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating by reason of physical disability ratable at or above 30% disabling. The VA assigns disability ratings without regard to the issue of fitness for military duty.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069810C070402
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected to show he had 20 years of active service when he was medically retired. On 4 September 1968, a medical evaluation board (MEB) noted 23 diagnoses as a result of the applicant’s injuries and recommended he be referred to a PEB as the absence of his left eye made him unfit for further active duty. Soldiers who are medically unfit and not likely to return to duty should be processed for disability retirement or separation when it is decided...