DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
ANNEX
NAVY
2
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
S
JRE
Docket No: 1173-01
5 February 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. You requested the
I’.
.
.invalidation of Physical Evaluation Board.
”
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 25 January 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 failed to discern any relationship between the validity of the finding of fitness
made by the PEB which considered your case on 30 August
2ooO and the factors listed in
your petition, namely the nature of your overseas screening, the participation of Air Force
personnel in the disability evaluation process, and your contention that you were
counseled properly or by a qualified counselor in the Navy evaluation system.” As you have
not demonstrated that the finding of fitness was erroneous or unjust, there is no basis for the
Board to recommend that the finding be modified or set aside. Accordingly, your application
has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon
request.
‘I.. .not
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 | CY2002 | 05715-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 January 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The PEB determined that you were fit for duty, notwithstanding those diagnoses, and the Chief of Naval Personnel was requested to take appropriate action to continue you on active duty. Consequently, when applying for a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10605-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 February 2008. While the report for 8 July to 22 August 2000 does address the matter of your MECEP disenrollment, the Board found paragraph 2 of the memorandum of 14 March 2002 does not authorize removing the contested letter. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07510-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 September 2002. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 29 October 2001 and 25 March 2002, copies of which are attached. Based on our review of the material provided, we find the following: a.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09555-09
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the contested fitness report for 25 November 2002 to 29 May 2003. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 February 2010. 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 | 04029-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 February 2002. 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 | CY2005 | 04829-05
04829-05 10 October 2006This 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 21 September 2006. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08075-02
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 12 September 2002, a copy of which is attached. concurred with the Reporting Senior's extended evaluation does not somehow invalidate how the petitioner was ranked in the Comparative Assessment (Item K3) on the challenged fitness The fact that he Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINI LIEUTENANT COL MC report. Additionally,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 03396-03
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 September 2003. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. On 20 March 2002, the Naval Medical Center, Portsmouth, Virginia, recommended that you It gave you diagnoses of be discharged from the Navy because of your unsuitability for continued military service due to your...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 13802-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 March 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08393-06
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 29 August 2006, a copy of which is attached. In regard to the report covering the period 20020707 to 20030302 (TDi, the petitioner contends the report is inaccurate based on the reviewing officers non-concurrence with the reporting senior’s attribute markings. The Board concluded that Subj}: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION...