DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FORCORRECTION
OFNAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370.510
0
JRE
Docket No: 3264-00
10 July 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 28 June 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 released from active duty on 8 April 1994, and transferred to
the Temporary Disability Retired List the following day. On 2 March 1998, you were sent
orders to appear for a final periodic physical examination during October 1998. As you did
not appear for the examination, the President, Physical Evaluation Board directed, on 7
March 2000, that your name be removed from the TDRL and that you be discharged without
entitlement to disability benefits administered by the Department of the Navy.
abence of evidence which demonstrates that the removal of your name from the TDRL
In the
was erroneous or unjust, 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 | CY2001 | 04518-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 September 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. (a) which requested comments and a recommendation regarding Petitioner's request for correction of his On 4 June 1993, the Petitioner was discharged and placed on records. placed on the TDRL with a disability rating...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04504-02
consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. absence of evidence that the removal of your name from the TDRL and your discharge the Navy were erroneous, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in your case. 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 | CY1999 | 03797-98
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 April 1999. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that your condition was severe enough to warrant a rating of 50% at the time of your permanent retirement, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08664-09
”A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 June 2010. On 1 October 1996 the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) reviewed that report of that examination and determined that you remained unfit | for duty due to a seizure disorder, which was ratable at 20%. 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 | CY2007 | 00057-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 July 2007. 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. You should note, however, that during the period when your name was on the TDRL, military retired pay entitlements were offset dollar for dollar against...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04718-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 July 2001. IN REPLY REFER TO: 1400/3 MMPR-2 13 Mar 01 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS ADVISORY OPINION IN THE CASE OF FORMER - ‘ a retired Marine indicates that he completed his he grade of probationary corporal and should have been promoted to the grade of sergeant prior to his retirement from the Marine Corps on 22...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02304-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 May 2009. 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 material...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00800-01
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. Notwithstanding the clinical recommendation for aortic valve in the absence of any contemporary ejection fraction or the disability rating options are still limited to 30% or Subj: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE CASE OF In summary, 3. functional impairment. time the Petitioner's TDRL status was...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04466-01
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 | CY2001 | 02924-00
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. We have determined the evidence in this case does not (a) which requested comments and He was discharged on The petitioner's case history, contained in reference (a), was 2. thoroughly reviewed in accordance with reference The following comments and recommendations are provided: (b) and is...