Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01135-02
Original file (01135-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  NAVY 

BOARD  FOR  C O R R E C T I O N   OF  NAVAL  R E C O R D S  

2   NAVY  ANNEX 

W A S H I N G T O N   D C   2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0  

JRE 
Docket No:  1 135-02 
18 March  2002 

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  7 March  2002.  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  served  in  the Navy  from 3 June to 9 September 1999, when  you 
were discharged by  reason of  your  failure to  meet procurement medicallphysical standards 
because of  chronic headaches.  You  were assigned a reenlistment code of  RE-4.  Available 
records indicate that you  had  a history  of  chronic headaches which  you  concealed when  you 
underwent your pre-enlistment physical examination, and  that the headache condition was 
severe enough to preclude you  from successfully completing military training.  The Board 
was  not  persuaded that your discharge was  erroneous, or that it should take any action which 
would  facilitate your reenlistment.  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 | CY2000 | 03499-00

    Original file (03499-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. ( 1 ) OASTF~ESOPHAGEAL REFLUX DISEASE, 53081 (2) HYPERTENSION, 4019 (3) HYPERCHOLESTEROLEMIA, 2720 (4) CHRONIC HEADACHES, 7840 (5) IRRITABLE BOWEL.SYNDROME, 5641 (6) GENERALIZED ANXIETY DISORDER, 30002 (7) HISTORY OF ALCOHOL ABUSE, 3039 ON 29 JANUARY 1996, THE RECORD REVIEW PANEL OF THE PHYSICAL EVALUATION BOARD...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06881-01

    Original file (06881-01.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 April 2002. The recommendations of the medical board were to attempt to control the cluster headaches through medication and a six month period of limited duty. Additionally the Board considered the statements of your commanding officer concerning his investigation, your personal letter written concerning your positive urinalysis test and the fact that you were...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07314-01

    Original file (07314-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 March 2002. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. You enlisted in the Navy on 3 August 1994 for four years at age 18.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07315-01

    Original file (07315-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Regulations authorize the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code to individuals separated by reason of a diagnosed personality disorder. Absent such evidence, the Board concluded that the reason for discharge and separation code were appropriate.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07879-01

    Original file (07879-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 March 2002. You enlisted in the Navy on 9 June 1999 at age 17. 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 | 04451-01

    Original file (04451-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 April 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05634-01

    Original file (05634-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 February 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02161-02

    Original file (02161-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 April 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01638-02

    Original file (01638-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 March 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07880-01

    Original file (07880-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 March 2002. You were not recommended for reenlistment and were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code. 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.