DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
JRE
Docket No: 5283-01
14 August 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 9 August 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 enlisted in the Naval Reserve on 11 December 1963, and entered
It appears that your enlistment was fraudulent, in that you
on active duty on 6 January 1964.
failed to disclose your pre-service history of psychiatric evaluation, diagnosis and treatment.
You were separated from the Navy with an undesirable discharge on 30 December 1964, due
to your commission of numerous violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, for
which you received non-judicial punishment on eight separate occasions. The discharge was
subsequently upgraded to general upon the approval of the recommendation of the Board,
which noted that most of your offenses were alcohol related, and felt that you were
unsuitable for service rather than unfit by reason of misconduct.
The Board noted that in order for a service member to qualify for disability separation or
retirement from the Armed Forces, he must be unfit to perform the duties of his office,
grade, rate or rating by reason of a physical disability which was incurred in or aggravated
by his military service. Although you may have been suffering from a mental disorder
during your brief period of naval service, the available records are insufficient to determine
the nature or degree of severity of such a disorder. There is no basis for concluding that you
suffered from a mental disorder which was incurred in or aggravated by your service, or that
you were unfit for duty because of the effects of a mental disorder.
concluded that it would not be in the interest of justice to upgrade your discharge to
honorable.
In addition, the Board
In view of the foregoing, 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 | 06513-06
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 in order for a service member to be retired by reason of physical disability,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04274-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 December 2002. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that you suffered from a mental or physical disorder which was incurred in or aggravated by your brief period of service, and rendered you unfit by reason of physical disability, as opposed to unsuitable for service, there is no basis for any corrective action in your case. Consequently, when applying...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02938-00
The Board concluded that even it were to be assumed, for the sake of argument, that you did suffer from schizophrenia during your enlistment, you would not be entitled to disability benefits administered by the Department of the Navy, because that condition was quiescent at the time of your release from active duty. You have not demonstrated that you were unfit for duty on 7 November 1958. Your request must include newly discovered relevant evidence which was not reasonably available to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03165-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 June 2001. Although you were diagnosed a suffering from several mental disorder at that time, the only condition considered disabling was a psychotic disorder, not otherwise specified, which the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) determined existed prior to service (EPTS), and was not service aggravated. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03142-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 December 2001. With regard to the ear condition which resulted in your administrative separation from the Navy, the Board noted that you accepted the findings of a medical board which evaluated you on 16 September 1968, and determined that you suffered from chronic, bilateral otitis media, with perforation of the left tympanic membrane, which existed prior to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00101-01
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. Your allegations of error and 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04265-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 June 2001. On 14 November 1988, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) advised you that it had rated your back condition at 20%, and denied service connection for a psychiatric disorder. 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 | 03333-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 June 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 | 07438-00
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. Sincerely, W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Director Enclosure SECNAVINST 1850.4D 2016 Conditions Not Phvsical Disabilitv i Certain conditions and defects of a developmental nature designated by the Secretary of Defense do not constitute a physical disability and are not ratable in the absence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07101-00
The diagnosis of Delusional Disorder, Paranoid Type, was thus established at this evaluation. The petitioner's psychological evaluations consistently reported that no delusions were present. However, this does not SUBJ: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN CASE OF mean the condition was also present at the time they were diagnosed solely as Personality Disorder.