DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION
OFNAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
JRE
Docket No: 7219-01
23 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 4 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.
TUT condition was quiescent at that time. Shortly after entering on active duty,
The Board rejected your contention to the effect that you did not suffer from a disqualifying
(TMJ) during your period of naval service from 3
condition of your temporomandibular joint
to 30 October 1996. In this regard, it noted that you were rejected for service in the Army
because of a TMJ related condition, and that you later received a waiver of that condition,
but declined to reenlist. Navy recruiting officials apparently accepted the previously granted
waiver, and found you physically qualified for enlistment based on your representation that
the
however, you complained of bilateral TMJ pain, and reported that you had a two to three
year history of a TMJ condition. You were discharged on your twenty-eighth day of service
based on your failure to meet minimum physical standards for enlistment. You were
assigned a reenlistment code of RE-4, which is the only code authorized for Sailors
discharged for that reason. The Board noted that you did not rebut any information
contained in the recommendation for discharge, or otherwise object to the discharge at that
time. The fact that a private physician who examined you on 25 June 1996 found no
evidence of TMJ dysfunction was not considered probative of the existence of error or
injustice. In this regard, the Board noted that you were discharged from the Navy based on
your history and subjective complaints. You apparently did not have those complaints when
examined by your physician when you were attempting to qualify for enlistment.
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.
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.
In this
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07721-09
You had no military status during the period from 26 June 1979 to 19 December 1988. , The Board considered your application and all pertinent records in accordance with the provisions of SECNAV Instruction 5420.193, enclosure (1), Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (codified at 32 CFR 723), paragraph 3e. During the 1979-1989 period, you received treatment from VA health care providers for multiple conditions such as hip, back and knee pain, chronic recurrent foot pain,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06977-01
” The Board noted that it is the function of an MEB, which is composed entirely of physicians, to report on the state of health of the service member who is the subject of the MEB, and to recommend referral of the member to the PEB in appropriate cases. In reference to the question of why Petitioner's cardiac and pulmonary conditions found not unfitting at the time of his initial PEB adjudication and placement on the TDRL, reference Petitioner's original 14 February 1992 Medical Evaluation...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 02146-04
Documentary material considered by the Board reconsider of your application, together with all material submitted insupport t thereof, your naval record arid applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The Board rejected the recent determination of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that the heart condition was incurred during your service in the Navy, as that determination is not well reasoned or substantiated by the evidence of record. Consequently, when applying for a correction...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08040-99
18 Jan 1995: rear-ended-twice- complained of neck pain and tingling; mentioned mid and low back pain. MC, USN John C4pT. Civilian 8188 Back sprain treated at July Dee 3 care by physical therapy for “mechanical LBP ” treated with medication and requested report from civilian 17 Sept 1990 “hit from behind ” in “shoulder pain ” MVA” complaining of headache, backache and ortho (no report seen) Regarding the 17 April 1996 history and physical qualified for discharge on his final physical...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01170-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive 1 May 2002. 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 | CY2002 | 01732-02
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, and the record of the two previous reviews of your application by the Board. In addition, the Board considered an advisory opinion furnished by the Director, Naval Council of Personnel Boards dated 1 May 2002, a copy of which is attached. An SNMHAS record entry dated 12 August 1987 indicates...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03232-00
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. You were not discharged because of the effects of a recurrent hernia, as you now allege, but because of the effect of recurrent bilateral varicocele. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001053972C070420
On 2 December 1998 a PEB considered the applicant’s condition as indicated by the TDRL examination and determined that she was physically unfit, recommended a 10 percent disability rating and that she be separated with severance pay. Her renal disease was in remission, however, she had received inadequate therapy due to the continued low white blood cell count which was probably secondary to some systemic activity of lupus. She stated the VA has evaluated her condition as 100 percent disabling.
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 | CY2001 | 01332-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 June 2000. You denied a history of psychiatric symptoms or treatment on the front side of the form, and disclosed a history of counseling for “normal teenage rebellion” on the reverse side. 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.