DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
JRE
Docket No: 7406-01
28 December 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 13 December 2001. Your allegations of error and
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
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.
Your battalion commander concurred with that
The Board found that you enlisted in the Marine Corps on 13 March 1983. On 13 January
1987, you battery commander recommended that you be processed for separation by reason
of misconduct, based on your record of four nonjudicial punishments, as well as charges
which were pending against you at that time.
recommendation in an endorsement dated 18 February 1987, and he noted that you had also
been convicted by summary court-martial and received two letters of deficiencies, and that
there had been a precipitous decline in your proficiency and conduct.
medical board on 14 March 1987, and were diagnosed as suffering from a seizure disorder.
Your case was referred to the Disability Evaluation System for action. On 21 April 1987,
you were advised of your rights in connection with your proposed discharge by reason of
misconduct, with a discharge under other than honorable conditions. In accordance with the
provisions of the Disability Evaluation Manual then in effect, your disability evaluation
should have been held in abeyance at that time pending completion of the administrative
On 14 May 1987, you waived your right to have
action. This was not done in your case.
your case heard by an administrative discharge board, and submitted a statement in rebuttal
You appeared before a
to the proposed discharge. On 18 May 1987, the Physical Evaluation Board made
preliminary findings that you were unfit for duty because of the seizure disorder, which it
rated at 40%. On 26 May 1987, the Staff Judge Advocate, 1st Marine Division, advised the
discharge authority that your separation proceedings were sufficient in law and fact, and that
he concurred with the recommendation that you be discharged under other than honorable
conditions. The discharge authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 8 June
1987, and directed that you be discharged no later than 6 July 87. On 12 June 1987, the
Physical Evaluation Board finalized your disability evaluation, and requested that the
Commandant of the Marine Corps take appropriate action to place your name on the
Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL). On 16 June 1997, the Commandant of the
Marine Corps, who apparently was not aware of your administrative discharge proceedings,
directed that your name be placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) effective
2 July 1987. That action was held in abeyance because of your pending discharge by reason
of misconduct, and ultimately cancelled by the Commandant of the Marine Corps and the
President, Physical Evaluation Board.
The Board noted that a discharge by reason of misconduct generally takes precedence over
and precludes disability separation or retirement. Although you were unfit by reason of
physical disability at the time in question, you were separated by reason of misconduct
before your proposed transfer to the TDRL was effected.
demonstrates that your discharge by reason of misconduct was erroneous or unjust, the Board
was unable to recommend any corrective action in your case.
has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon
request.
In the absence of evidence which
Accordingly, your application
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 | 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 | 09234-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 November 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03527-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 July 2009. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that your disability was ratable at or above 30% disabling as of 12 May 2006, 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...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00633
I recommend that this officer be released from his service obligation via a medical discharge.’ On 20040316 the CI’s case met a LIMITED DUTY BOARD which determined the CI be placed on an 8 month Limited Duty Board during which time a workup will be undertaken for his seizure disorder. After careful consideration of all available information the Board unanimously determined that the CI’s seizure disorder is appropriately rated as 8910 Primary Generalized Seizure Disorder at 10% disability...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10963-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, Sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 September 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 | CY2008 | 07956-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 January 2009. In this regard, the Board concluded that you were properly discharged with a disability rating on 20% for a seizure 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 | CY2010 | 12476-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 May 2011. 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...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00114
Since the injury he suffered from headaches and one isolated seizure in October 2004. The Board considered at length both the TDRL rating and the final rating recommendations at separation from the TDRL. The VASRD does allow for a 10% rating for the cranial defect and the Board, by simple majority, recommends addition of this condition as unfitting, coded 5296, with a 10% TDRL rating and a 10% final rating.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00032-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 November 2008. The Board noted that you would not be entitled to retired pay even if your name were to be restored to the TDRL, as your statutory entitlement to that pay ended on the fifth anniversary of your transfer to the TDRL. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201246
Although the Applicant’s misconduct during his enlistment warranted a Bad Conduct Discharge as the result of a Special Court-Martial, or at the very least, an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization as the result of administrative separation for misconduct, the NDRB is not authorized to change a discharge to a more unfavorable level. Despite the Applicant’s deployment to Iraq, his record contained repetitive, serious misconduct and below-average Proficiency and Conduct marks...