Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01452-98
Original file (01452-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

JRE
Docket No: 1452-98
22 February 2000

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 18 February 2000. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures
applicable to the proceedings of this Board.
consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your
naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.

Documentary material considered by the Board

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 served on active duty in the Navy from 24 November
1972 to 5 December 1973, when you were discharged by reason of unsuitability. Although
you had been treated for the effects of multiple ear infections during your enlistment, your
hearing remained within normal limits, and you were found physically qualified for
discharge. On 8 March 1984, the Veterans Administration awarded you a 0% rating for
residuals of ear infections, and 0% for a minimal hearing loss in the right ear.

The Board did not accept your contention to the effect that you waived the right to appear
before a medical board, as there is no indication in the available records that a medical board
In the absence of evidence which demonstrates
was indicated or considered in your case.
that you were unfit to perform the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating by reason of
physical disability at the time of your discharge, the Board was unable to recommend any
corrective action in your case.
and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names

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



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 05954-03

    Original file (05954-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Osgood- In this regard, The Board noted that your receipt of a disability benefits from the VA does not demonstrate that your discharge from the Marine Corps was erroneous. As you have not demonstrated that any of the conditions rated by the VA, either separately or in combination with others, rendered you unfit for duty at the time of your discharge from the Marine Corps, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07969-00

    Original file (07969-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 June 2001. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Director, Naval Council of Personnel Boards, dated 27 March 2001, a copy of which is attached. tolerating medications and had no He was well The - 27 January 2000, the PEB reevaluated the Petitioner's case and reduced his disability rating to 30%.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00864-02

    Original file (00864-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 March 2002. You enlisted in the Navy on 7 May 1991. 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05449-00

    Original file (05449-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. BECAUSE IT WAS UNCLEAR FROM THE MEMBER ’S TESTIMONY ALSO INDICATED THAT BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF MOTION AT THE ANKLE, HE TENDS TO WALK WITH HIS FOOT TURNED OUT RESULTING IN PAIN IN HIS KNEE AND THE TDRL EVALUATION AND THE V.A. THEREFORE, THE DISABILITY IS RATED AT 20% UNDER V.A.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 00910-04

    Original file (00910-04.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.After careful and conscientious consideration of the record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.The Board was unable to accept your contention to the effect that you suffered...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08377-02

    Original file (08377-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 December 2002. Documentary material considered by the Board in support thereof, your 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. You were given a diagnosis of chronic right middle ear disease, which existed...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04184-02

    Original file (04184-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 November 2002. On 9 June 1997, the PEB found you unfit for duty because of your back pain, which it rated at severance pay. 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 08695-05

    Original file (08695-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    08695-05 6 November 2006This is in reference to your application for correction of your navalrecord 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, consideredyour application on 26 October 2006. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted insupport thereof, yournaval recordandapplicable statutes,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02421-09

    Original file (02421-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 April 2010. Your receipt of VA disability ratings for multiple conditions is not probative of the existence of material error or injustice in your naval record because the VA assigned those ratings without regard to the issue of your fitness for Military duty at the time of your release from active duty. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04463-02

    Original file (04463-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 October 2002. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...