DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAW ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No: 4585-98
10 May 1999
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the
provisions of title 10 of the
Ihrited States Code, section 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 29 April 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 served on active duty in the Marine Corps from 4 September 1962
to 26 October 1966, when you were transferred to the Marine Corps Reserve. You
underwent a pre-enlistment physical examination on 21 November 1972 and were found
physically qualified for enlistment. You disclosed a history of several injuries, but their
residuals were not considered disqualifying. You reenlisted in the Marine Corps on 30 May
1973. You underwent a pre-separation physical examination on 25 October 1973. You did
not disclose any significant medical history, and no disqualifying defects were noted by the
examining physician, who found you qualified for separation. You specifically denied a
history of symptoms related to mental disorders.
Corps on 27 November 1973, at your request, for hardship.
You were discharged from the Marine
The Board noted that unlike the military departments, the Department of Veterans Affairs
awards disability benefits without regard to the issue of fitness for military duty. In the
absence of evidence which demonstrates that you were unfit to perform the duties of your
office, grade, rank or rating at the time of your discharge from the Marine Corps in 1973,
the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in your case.
application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be
furnished upon request.
Accordingly, your
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
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01431-01
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. You were discharged on 19 February 1999, by reason of a condition, not a disability, interfering with your performance of duty. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 05954-03
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 | CY2002 | 04463-02
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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08797-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 June 2010. Your receipt of a combined disability rating of 10% from the VA shortly after you were released from active duty is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record because those ratings were assigned without regard to the issue of your fitness for military duty on 25 June 1985. Consequently, when applying for a correction of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00213-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 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. Testing conducted on 27 June 2000 disclosed the presence of a thickened and redundant mitral valve leaflet and redundant membranous VSD.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03165-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 June 2001. Although you were diagnosed a suffering from several mental disorder at that time, the only condition considered disabling was a psychotic disorder, not otherwise specified, which the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) determined existed prior to service (EPTS), and was not service aggravated. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01332-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 June 2000. You denied a history of psychiatric symptoms or treatment on the front side of the form, and disclosed a history of counseling for “normal teenage rebellion” on the reverse side. 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 | CY2002 | 04899-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 November 2002. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11694-09
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. As you have not demonstrated that you were unfit for duty at the time of your discharge, the Board was unable to recommend corrective action in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02904-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive un 3 October 2002. 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. 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.