DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370.510
0
JRE
Docket No: 23 16-O 1
30 October 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 17 October 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 served on active duty in the Navy from 29 October 1954 to 30
July 1958. Although you lost the vision in one eye during that period, you were considered
physically qualified for release from active duty. Shortly thereafter, you submitted an
application for correction of your record to show that you were not physically qualified when
released from active duty. On 6 August 1959, the Physical Review Council reviewed your
records, and determined that you were fit for duty as of 30 July 1958. On 10 August 1959,
you requested that the Board authorize your reenlistment. On 25 August 1959, you were
advised that your request for correction of your record to show that you were unfit for duty
was denied, and you were advised that it was not within the purview of the Board to
authorize your reenlistment. You were advised to present that request to the Chief of Naval
Personnel. On 9 December 1959, you were advised by a recruiting official that as you had
been separated under a program to release individuals of lower professional competence and
adaptability, you were not considered eligible for reenlistment in any classification. You
renewed your request for reenlistment in 1967, but as you had been discharged from the
Navy, you were required to meet procurement, rather than retention, physical standards.
Under those standards, the blindness in your right eye was considered disqualifying; however
a binocular vision is not a requirement for many occupational fields, the physician who
performed your pre-enlistment examination recommended that you be granted a waiver of
physical disqualification. Unfortunately, that request was denied, any you were disqualified
from reenlistment.
The fact that you have received a substantial disability rating from the Department of
Veterans Affairs is not probative of error or injustice in your record, because that agency
awards disability ratings without regard to the issue of fitness for military duty. As have not
demonstrated that you were unfit for duty on 30 July 1959, 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
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00093-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 June 1999. 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...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-01345 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes A(JG 1 4 1998 APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The error committed by the Physjcal Evaluation Board (PEB) and the Physical Review Council (PRC) in 1963 be corrected and, instead of being separated with severance pay, his records show he had length of service of 20 years and was retired in the grade of master sergeant. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The PEB...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110004450
The applicant states: * he was released from his unit as a direct result of an injury incurred while he was in a 2-week drill status * he lost vision in his right eye, suffers from headaches, and was awarded a 30 percent rating just for his right eye from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) * the same regulations governing disabilities which are used by the Armed Forces are used by the VA * according to regulations, he should have been medically retired * the attached DA Form 8-118...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04663-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 November 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. On 7 February 1958 you received NJP for failure to The punishment imposed was The punishment imposed was a reduction you were convicted by summary court-martial On 22 February 1958, of two instances of breach of the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08316-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 February 2009. On 16 May 1997, a medical board gave you diagnoses of incapacitating movements of the face, neck and eyes, obsessive compulsive disorder, and possible Tourette’e syndrome, and recommended that your case be referred to the Physical Evaluation Board. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110017300
The PEB determined that he remained unfit, awarded him a 30% disability rating, and recommended permanent retirement. The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge which disqualify the Soldier from further military service. The PEB did so and rated him at 30% for his eye condition.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140002375
The applicant states he was discharged for weight control failure under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 18, but he injured his left eye in January 2005. b. Paragraph 3-16e states vision that cannot be corrected with ordinary spectacle lenses to at least 20/40 in one eye and 20/100 in the other eye or 20/30 in one eye and 20/200 in the other eye, or 20/20 in one eye and 20/800 in the other eye are causes for referral to an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03098196C070212
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 5 November 1952 the applicant was treated for pneumonia and was hospitalized for one week at an Army hospital in Japan. His medical records, which he submits with his request, are correct as depicted.
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2004-056
The same physician’s assistant who had conducted the applicant’s separation physical noted that there was some tenderness around the spine but that the applicant had a free range of motion without pain and “5/5 strength.” He took xrays; prescribed Motrin and Flexeril for the pain; ordered an MRI, which he noted that the cutter’s health services technician “will coordinate”; and noted that the appli- cant was FFFD (fit for full duty). of the Medical Manual states that the physical standards...
CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2004-056
The same physician’s assistant who had conducted the applicant’s separation physical noted that there was some tenderness around the spine but that the applicant had a free range of motion without pain and “5/5 strength.” He took xrays; prescribed Motrin and Flexeril for the pain; ordered an MRI, which he noted that the cutter’s health services technician “will coordinate”; and noted that the appli- cant was FFFD (fit for full duty). of the Medical Manual states that the physical standards...