DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
JRE
Docket. No: 4466-O 1
2 1 November 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 16 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.
It is unfortunate that the Chief of Naval Personnel did not receive and/or take
(TDRL), and were free from significant residuals of your brain tumor or the treatment
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 noted that you did very well while on the Temporary Disability Retired
List
therefor.
appropriate action to implement the directive of the President, Physical Evaluation Board of
11 January 1999, that you were fit for duty. The fact that you were erroneously retained on
the TDRL for another two years, and that you underwent further brain surgery shortly after
your name was removed from the TDRL, was not considered probative of material error or
injustice.
In this regard, it noted that the available records demonstrate that you were fit for
duty when removed from the TDRL, and that there has been no recurrence of the tumor.
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 | CY2006 | 11019-06
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 Navy by reason of physical disability on 6...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 08923-04
Subject was reportedly discharged from the USMC on or about 4 July 2004, and applied for VA compensation and pension evaluation on or about 19 July 2004,but it does not appear that he sought treatment at that time. There appears to be no record of required medical attention until a tragic motor vehicle accident (MVA), which reportedly occurred on 21 August 2004 and left Subject with massive traumatic brain injury (TBI). That Subject’s naval record be corrected to show that he was not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072374C070403
The applicant states that, because of the medical condition that was discovered while he was on active duty, he should have been referred to a medical evaluation board (MEB). Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability. Title 10, U. S. Code, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a Regular member (or Reserve Component member on active duty over 30...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03213-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 August 2001. The Board found that you served on active duty from 17 August 1992 to 18 January 1994, when you were discharged by reason of misconduct with a discharge under other than honorable conditions, based on your commission of a serious offense. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02840
He suffered from a serious brain tumor condition that was corrected by surgery and removal of the tumor was more than three years ago. The board finds the member unfit for duty at this time and he should be placed on the TDRL and re-evaluated in 18 months. The applicant contends that he is fit for duty and there is no reason to question the Commandant of Cadets who indicated the applicant was fulfilling all duties required of cadets at the time he was placed on TDRL.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050012073C070206
The USAPDA Deputy Commander continues that there is no evidence that the applicant's tumor was present while on active duty in 1999 and did not present sufficient evidence to show the condition was unfitting. The Chief, Neurosurgery Service continues that he further elaborates his statement that the lesion in the applicant's brain was present prior to his retirement from the Army. In concurrence with the advisory opinion, there is no evidence in the applicant's service records and the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00792-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 June 2001. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that your condition should have been rated at 70% disabling when your name was removed from the TDRL, 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00559-01
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 22 January 2001 with enclosure, a copy of which is attached. When the petitioner acknowledged the adverse nature of the report on 20 June 1999 (evidence her signature in Section Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF GUNNERY SERGEANT SMC ment of rebuttal , she had still not furnished her...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: - The AFBCMR Chief Medical Consultant reviewed this application and is of the opinion that no change In the records is warranted and the application should be d e n i m . *at Based on the medical evidence provided, the IPEB found her condition nad stabilized and recommended thar she be removed from the TDRL and permanently retired w i t h a 40% disability rating. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated Exhibit D .
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 04829-05
04829-05 10 October 2006This 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 21 September 2006. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable...