Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07262-00
Original file (07262-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370.510

0

JRE
Docket No: 7262-00
24 September 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 20 September 2001.
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures
applicable to the proceedings of this Board.
consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your
naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.

Documentary material considered by the Board

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.

The Board found that you served on active duty in the Marine Corps from 30 May to 20
November 1995, when you were discharged by reason of erroneous enlistment because of
your symptomatic flat feet, which existed prior to your enlistment. Following your
discharge, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) denied your request for service
connection for your flat feet, as well for claimed nerve damage secondary to a spinal tap you
underwent during your enlistment.

The Board was not persuaded that your foot condition was aggravated by your service, or
In the absence of evidence which
that you suffered from undiagnosed nerve damage.
demonstrates that you were unfit for service because of a condition which was incurred in or
aggravated by your naval service, 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



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07762-10

    Original file (07762-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 March 2011. You accepted those findings on 10 January 1989, and were honorably discharged from the Marine Corps on 17 February 1989 Following your discharge, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded you a 10% rating for the flat feet condition, and denied your request for service connection fora bilateral knee condition. Consequently, when applying for a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04899-02

    Original file (04899-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 November 2002. Documentary material considered by the Board 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 06153-05

    Original file (06153-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 underwent a pre-enlistment physical examination on 23 June 2001 and were...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11122-09

    Original file (11122-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ‘A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 April 2010. The BMS determined that you were unfit for duty by reason of bilateral hallux valgus, which was not incurred in or aggravated by your brief period of active duty service, and recommended that you be discharged without entitlement to disability benefits. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 05699-99

    Original file (05699-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 February 2000. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that you were unfit for duty because of a condition incurred in or aggravated by your service, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in your case. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01431-01

    Original file (01431-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 discharged on 19 February 1999, by reason of a condition, not a disability, interfering with your performance of duty. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05221-07

    Original file (05221-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 January 2008. 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 | CY1999 | 08426-98

    Original file (08426-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. primus varus with hallux valgus, which existed It recommended that you In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that your disability was incurred in or aggravated by your service in the Marine Corps, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in your case. Consequently,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 03548-00

    Original file (03548-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 1 May 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 | CY2008 | 11339-08

    Original file (11339-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 November 2009. 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...