Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02077-00
Original file (02077-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

Docket No: 2077-00
13 March 2001

.’ 

_-

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 1 March 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.

Board found that you served in the Navy from 1 October to 22 December 1999, when

The 
you were discharged because of your failure to meet minimum physical standards for
enlistment because of hypertension. As you were in entry level status at that time, you did
not qualify for a characterized discharge, and you were assigned a reenlistment code of 
RE-
4, as required by regulations. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that you were
unfit for duty because of a condition incurred in or aggravated by. your naval service, 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 | CY2001 | 06178-01

    Original file (06178-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 August 2001. The Board carefully considered your contentions to the effect that your condition was less severe than diagnosed by Navy medical authorities, and that had you received proper medical testing, evaluation and care, you would have been able to complete training, but found those matters insufficient to demonstrate that material error or You were...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05444-00

    Original file (05444-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 March 2001. There is no indication in the available records that you were unfit by reason of a physical disability incurred in or aggravated by your brief period of service. 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 | 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 | CY2002 | 06920-01

    Original file (06920-01.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. An administrative discharge board which convened on 11 July 2001 found that you had committed misconduct due to drug abuse, commission of a serious offense, and driving under the influence of alcohol, and recommended that you be separated from the Navy with a general discharge. Consequently,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05882-09

    Original file (05882-09.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 additional conditions rated by the VA rendered you unfit to reasonably perform your Military duties, and that you were entitled to a combined rating from the Department of the Navy of 30% or higher, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 00759-04

    Original file (00759-04.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 March 2005. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04114-01

    Original file (04114-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 November 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Given all the circumstances of your case, the Board concluded your discharge and reenlistment code were proper as issued and no change is warranted. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07133-00

    Original file (07133-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEP 4RTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FO I CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD S 2 NAVY ANNE X W \SHlNGTON DC 2037 0 510 0 JRE Docket No: 7133-00 11 June 2001 This is in reference to your provisions of title 10 of the United ltates Code, section 1552. : applicaf on 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 24 May 2001. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08667-00

    Original file (08667-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 August 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 | 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...