Q’EPARTMLNT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2
NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
’
JRE
Docket No: 2120-99
5 July 2000
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 22 June 2000. 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.
counsel.
In addition, it considered the comments of your
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. In this regard, the Board noted that, contrary to the assertion of your counsel,
your case was evaluated by the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), and that you were found
unfit for duty and discharged by reason of physical disability. The Board concluded that the
rating assigned by the PEB was correct. The fact that the Department of Veterans Affairs
awarded you substantially higher ratings was considered insufficient to demonstrate that error
or injustice occurred 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
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01106-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 September 2000. The fact that the Department of Veterans Affairs awarded you a substantially higher combined rating, and your current dissatisfaction with the rating assigned by the PEB in 1987, were considered insufficient to warrant any corrective action in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07500-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 January 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted ef 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 | 09278-02
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 with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 2001, and you were discharged by reason of physical disability on 1 February lo%, and recommended that you be discharged by reason of You accepted the findings of the PEB The Board concluded that in view of your...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05991-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 February 2003. After reviewing the report of that examination on 14 April 2000, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) made preliminary findings that you were unfit for duty because of residuals of your cancer, which it rated at 0%. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08062-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive considered,your application on 13 December 2000. 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 material...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11486-10
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 JRE Docket No. 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 material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05267-01
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 | CY2010 | 04458-10
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 | CY2009 | 08005-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 January 2010. On 2 June 1999, a formal hearing panel of the PEB considered your case and assigned you a combined disability rating of 10% for conditions of your lumbar and cervical spine. 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 | 03096-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 October 2002. February 1999, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) made preliminary findings that you were unfit for duty because of the depressive disorder, which it rated at 10% disabling. 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.