Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02033-01
Original file (02033-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
AVAL 

FOR 

BOARD 

CORRECTION 
2 NAVY ANNE

0~ N

X

RECORDS

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

JRE
Docket 
6 December 2001

No: 2033-01

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 29 November 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 were discharged from the Marine Corps on 3 October 1990 for the
convenience of the government because you suffered from heat intolerance. That condition
was listed in SECNAVINST 
constitute a physical disability, and it was specifically excluded from consideration for
entitlement for disability benefits administered by the Department of the Navy. In addition,
the Board was unable to conclude that your condition was the residual of a head injury you
sustained during your service. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names
and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

1850.4c, paragraph 1007, as a condition which did not

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 | CY2001 | 05294-01

    Original file (05294-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 November 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 | 03605-02

    Original file (03605-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 November 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance applicable to the proceedings of this Board. In addition, it considered the comments of your counsel with administrative regulations and procedures Your allegations of error and Documentary material considered by the Board After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07197-01

    Original file (07197-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive 25 April 2002. Your allegations of error and session, considered your application on 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01060-01

    Original file (01060-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-niember panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 November 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 | CY2001 | 04175-00

    Original file (04175-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 June 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 | 04187-00

    Original file (04187-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 February 2001. On 24 October 1986, the Physical Evaluation Board that you remained unfit for duty, and that your condition was ratable at 10%. 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 | CY2008 | 07914-08

    Original file (07914-08.pdf) 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. As you have not demonstrated that any of the conditions rated by the VA, other than patellofemoral syndrome, rendered you unfit to reasonably perform the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating at the time of your discharge, the Board was unable to recommend corrective action in your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01667-01

    Original file (01667-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 October 2001. You accepted those findings on 16 June 1992, and you The Board noted that disability ratings assigned by the military departments are fixed as of the date of separation or permanent retirement, whereas ratings assigned by the VA may be adjusted throughout a veteran ’s life time as the severity of the rated condition changes In the absence of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04399-99

    Original file (04399-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 March 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. The Board concluded that your lower back condition was productive of minimal to mild disability at the time of your discharge, and that the 10% rating...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06403-02

    Original file (06403-02.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. The Board concluded that you were not physically qualified for military service, and that you would not have been permitted to enlist had you disclosed the disqualifying conditions. 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...