Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03108-02
Original file (03108-02.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: 3108-02
9 October 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 3 October 2002. 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
insufficient.to establish the existence of probable material error or
evidence submitted was  
injustice.

The Board found that you served in the Navy from 26 June to 15 August 2001, when you
were discharged by reason of erroneous entry because of a psychotic disorder.
was unable to accept your unsubstantiated contentions to the effect that the diagnosis was
erroneous and that you are fit for duty.
your discharge was erroneous or unjust, 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.

In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that

The Board

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.
important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.

In this regard, it is

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 | CY2002 | 01156-02

    Original file (01156-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 October 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 to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07334-01

    Original file (07334-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 February 2002. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that your discharge was erroneous, 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 error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07565-02

    Original file (07565-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 underwent a pre-enlistment physical examination on 19 July 2000. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00447-01

    Original file (00447-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 January 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 | 09278-02

    Original file (09278-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 November 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 2001, and you were discharged by reason of physical disability on 1 February lo%, and recommended that you be discharged by reason of You accepted the findings of the PEB The Board concluded that in view of your...

  • 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 | CY2002 | 07328-02

    Original file (07328-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive 10 October 2002. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that your discharge by reason of misconduct was erroneous or unjust, and establishes that your condition was incurred in the line of duty, 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03459-02

    Original file (03459-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    accordan& with administrative regulations and procedures Your allegations of error and 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. As you were not unfit for duty because of a condition incurred while you were entitled to basic Ray, and as you did not complete sufficient qualifying service for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06419-02

    Original file (06419-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 September 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 | CY2002 | 02904-02

    Original file (02904-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive un 3 October 2002. 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 to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.