Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01457-01
Original file (01457-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

JRE
Docket No: 1457-01
11 June 2001

 

Dear Sz,

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 24 May 2001. 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 Marine Corps on 10 January 2000. Although you
received medical treatment for a number of conditions during your enlistment, you were
cleared for separation on 15 May 2000. You did not disclose any conditions which rendered
you not physically qualified for separation, despite being admonished to do so if you believed
such conditions existed. You were discharged with an entry level separation on 23 May
2000.

In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that you were unfit to perform the duties of
your office, grade, rank or rating by reason of physical disability, the Board was unable to
recommend any corrective action in your case. 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

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 06402-05

    Original file (06402-05.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 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 as an enlisted member from 27...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07408-07

    Original file (07408-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 April 2008. your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Regulations authorize assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code to members who are not recommended for retention or are discharged due to erroneous enlistment. Consequently, when applying for a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04458-10

    Original file (04458-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 January 2011. As noted above, you were found fit for duty by the PEB, and you accepted that finding, which suggests that you felt that you were fit for duty at that time. 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 | 06763-00

    Original file (06763-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    were so separated on 21 July 2000. assigned an RE-3P reenlistment code. The Board noted that the evidence in your Marine Corps record was sufficient to refute the conclusion of your psychologist that you are qualified to serve in the military. the evidence-f your poor adjustment in recruit training and your admission to a fraudulent enlistment were sufficient to support separation from the Marine Corps.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03762-01

    Original file (03762-01.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 December 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. 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 | CY2008 | 00272-08

    Original file (00272-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 October 2008. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00213-01

    Original file (00213-01.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 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 | 05267-01

    Original file (05267-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD S 2 NAVY ANNE X WASHINGTON DC 20370-510 0 JRE Docket No: 5267-01 28 December 2001 This is in reference to your provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552. application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 December injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06173-01

    Original file (06173-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 December 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. 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 | CY2002 | 02290-01

    Original file (02290-01.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 February 2002. Unlike the VA, the military departments are permitted to assign disability ratings only in those cases where the service member has been found unfit for 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 or injustice.