Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 06828-98
Original file (06828-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
Y
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

ELP
Docket No. 6828-98
27 May 1999

Dear

This is in reference to your
naval record pursuant to the
States Code, Section 1552.

application for correction of your
provisions of Title 10, United

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 19 May 1999.
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.

Your allegations of error and

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 Naval Reserve on
27 August 1979 for eight years in the Active Mariner Program at
age 17.
period of three years.
subsequently changed your rate to RMSA.

You were ordered to active duty on 22 October 1979 for a

You were advanced to SA (E-2) and

On 9 June 1980, you were admitted to a naval hospital  
diagnosis of concussion.
You were discharged from treatment on
23 June 1980 with a diagnoses of mild concussion, recovered; and
syncopal episode, etiology undetermined, not considered unfitting
for duty.
However, you were returned to the hospital by military
ambulance on 11 July 1980 due to a  
issued temporary additional duty orders on 21 July 1980 to report
to National Naval Medical Center (NNMC) no later than 23 July
However, you failed to comply with the
1980 for admission.
orders and were reported in an unauthorized absence  
You remained absent until you were apprehended by civil
authorities on 26 July 1980.

You were then returned to the 

(UA) status.
NNMC.

with.a

syncopal attack.

You were

On 8 August 1980, a medical board recommended that you be placed
on six months of limited duty for episodic loss of consciousness,
and sporadic right temporal headaches.
not otherwise specified,
However on 11 August 1980 you were reported UA again and remained
absent until you surrendered on 28 March 1981.

You reported to the NNMC on 3 April 1981 for a reevaluation of
your limited duty status.
completely normal.
dizziness and right temporal headaches (benign cephalalgia).
You were
medical board recommended your return to full duty.
advised of the medical board's findings and requested return to
duty without any restrictions.

You were given final diagnoses of orthostatic

neurologic  evaluation was

A detailed 

The

On 16 April 1981, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for
and 11 August 1980 to 28 March
being UA from 23-26 July 1980,
During the months of July and August 1981, you received
1981.
two more 
absence from your appointed place of duty.

NJPs for two periods of UA totalling about 12 days and

You were advised of your

On 4 August 1981, you were notified that you were being
considered for discharge under other than honorable conditions by
reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement of a discredit-
able nature with military authorities.
procedural rights and elected to present your case to an
administrative discharge board (ADB).
agreed to waive an ADB provided you were recommended for a
general discharge.
the conditional waiver.
8 September 1981 with counsel.
The ADB found you had committed
misconduct due to frequent involvement and recommended discharge
under other than honorable conditions.
The commanding officer
concurred with the ADB findings and the Chief of Naval Personnel
directed discharge under other than honorable conditions by
reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement with military
authorities.

You were so discharged on 18 December 1981.

However, the convening authority disapproved

You appeared before an ADB on

Three days later, you

the Board carefully weighed

and the fact that it has been more

In its review of your application,
all potentially mitigating factors such as your youth and
immaturity, limited education,
than 17 years since you were discharged.
you enlisted under a name different from the one shown on your
application.
that at time of you service you were being treated for a head
trauma and this condition should have received more consideration
at the time of a summary court-martial.
There is no evidence in
available records that you were ever convicted by a summary
court-martial.
court-martial.

The Board also noted your contentions to the effect

You may have confused the ADB proceedings for a

The Board noted that

2

NJPs, one of which was for a UA which lasted for

The Board noted that this seven month UA

You have provided no evidence of any circumstances which

The Board concluded that the foregoing factors and contentions
were insufficient to warrant a recharacterization given your
record of three  
more than seven months.
was during the time you were to be placed in a limited duty
status.
would have justified such a prolonged period of UA.
record clearly indicates you were being treated for a concussion
syncopal episodes, there is no evidence these conditions
and 
rendered you incapable of distinguishing right from wrong, or
excused you of responsibility for your actions, or constituted
sufficient mitigation for your misconduct.
that the discharge was proper and no change is warranted.
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

The Board concluded

Although the

The names and

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that
You are entitled to have the
favorable action cannot be taken.
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

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00197

    Original file (PD2011-00197.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The CI made no appeals and was medically separated with a 10% disability rating. The Board evaluates DVA evidence proximal to separation in arriving at its recommendations, but its authority resides in evaluating the fairness of DES fitness decisions and rating determinations for disability at the time of separation. The Board determined therefore that the stated condition was not subject to service disability rating.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00596

    Original file (PD2011-00596.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB adjudicated the mild cognitive dysfunction condition as unfitting, rated 10%; with application of the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). A general C&P exam 10 months prior to separation, stated that in addition to his daily headaches and dizziness, the CI had experienced ten episodes of syncope over the past year, had not been able to work since the head injury, and had “significant functional impairment as he cannot concentrate,” although he was...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-02124

    Original file (PD-2014-02124.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The MEB also identified and forwarded four additional conditions, “Post-concussive headaches (controlled with medication, not unfitting for military duty); Thrombocytopenia (acute; not unfitting for military duty); Recurrent epistaxis (EPTS) and Recurrent major depression (EPTS; not unfitting for military duty).” The PEB adjudicated “neurocardiogenic syncope” as unfitting, rated 10% with likely application of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). BOARD FINDINGS : IAW DoDI...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-01136

    Original file (PD2012-01136.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB applied the VASRD code of 8045-9304 for the chronic daily headaches with occasional syncopal episodes condition and rated it 10%. In the matter of the chronic daily headaches and occasional syncopal episodes condition and IAW VASRD §4.124a, the Board, on a vote of 2:1, recommends no change in the PEB adjudication. Service Treatment Record Exhibit C. Department of Veterans’ Affairs Treatment Record xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, DAF Acting Director Physical Disability Board of...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00420

    Original file (PD2009-00420.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The CI, found unfit only for the PTSD condition, was determined unfit for continued military service and separated at 10% disability using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Ratings Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Navy and Department of Defense regulations. The CI completed his deployment and on return to the States had increasing symptoms of TBI including headaches, cognitive defects and a diagnosis of PTSD. Regarding TBI as a possible new unfitting condition: As noted in the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11286-10

    Original file (11286-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ali material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. After waiving your procedural rights to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB), your commanding officer recommended separation under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement of a discreditable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03896-99

    Original file (03896-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 June 2000. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. so discharged. 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 | CY2007 | 02971-07

    Original file (02971-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 February 2008. 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 a result, on 30 September 1982, the discharge authority directed your commanding officer to hold your separation in abeyance pending...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06405-06

    Original file (06405-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.On 7 July 1978 you enlisted in the Navy at age 18, and on 31 October 1978 you received nonjudicial...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02994-01

    Original file (02994-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Dear This is in reference to your naval record pursuant to the States Code, Section 1552. application for correction of your provisions of Title 10, United Your allegations of error and injustice were A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, 15 November 2001. reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. during the nine month period from November 1979 to December...