Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03224-02
Original file (03224-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

NAVY 

ANNEX

2 

WASHINGTON DC 20370.510

0

S

JRE
Docket No: 3224-02
25 November 2002

This is in reference to your
provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.

application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 31 October 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 on active duty in the Marine Corps
May 2001, when you were discharged by reason of misconduct, based on your multiple
absences without authority and a making a false official statement. There is no indication in
the available records that you were unfit by reason of physical disability at the time of your
discharge. In addition, the Board noted that in view of the basis for your separation, you
would not have been entitled to disability evaluation processing even if you had been unfit for
duty. Accordingly, your application has been denied.
The names and votes of the members
of the panel will be furnished upon request.

fro; 11 March to 5

 

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 | 07197-01

    Original file (07197-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive 25 April 2002. Your allegations of error and session, considered your application on 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04018-08

    Original file (04018-08.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 March 2009. The Board concluded that your receipt of substantial disability ratings from the VA effective the day after you were discharged from the Navy is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your Navy record. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02440-07

    Original file (02440-07.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-commissioning physical examination on 12 December 2000, at...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03605-02

    Original file (03605-02.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 applicable to the proceedings of this Board. In addition, it considered the comments of your counsel 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...

  • 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 | 04184-02

    Original file (04184-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 November 2002. On 9 June 1997, the PEB found you unfit for duty because of your back pain, which it rated at severance pay. 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 | 03219-02

    Original file (03219-02.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 October 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 | 05066-02

    Original file (05066-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 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. In this regard, it is Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 03029-03

    Original file (03029-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted 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. It noted that even if you had been unfit, you would not have It was been entitled to disability evaluation processing, because a discharge by reason of misconduct take precedence over In the absence of evidence...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05065-02

    Original file (05065-02.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. consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 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.