Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03461-02
Original file (03461-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENTOFTHE NAV
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

Y

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

JRE
Docket No: 3461-02
27 August 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
oti 22 August 2002. Your allegations of error and
session, considered your application  
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 were discharged from the Marine Corps in 1972 without
entitlement to disability benefits because your injury was self-inflicted, and therefore not
ratable. In addition, your disability evaluation was terminated when you were discharged for
the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial for absence without authority.
Board rejected your unsubstantiated contention to the effect that you were not absent without
authority.
than honorable conditions was erroneous, and establishes that your injury was incurred in the
line of duty, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action.
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 your discharge under other

The

Accordingly, your

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 | CY2002 | 06879-02

    Original file (06879-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 in executive 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04011-01

    Original file (04011-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 February 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10935-07

    Original file (10935-07.pdf) 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. As you have not demonstrated that any of those additional conditions rendered you unfit to reasonably perform the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating by reason of physical disability, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in your case. Consequently, when applying...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04012-01

    Original file (04012-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 February 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The PEB made preliminary findings that you were unfit for duty by reason of physical disability incurred as a result of your own misconduct, and therefore not ratable. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08519-02

    Original file (08519-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 August 2002. consisted of your application, together with all material submitted 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 | CY2003 | 03328-03

    Original file (03328-03.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 September 2003. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. found fit for duty immediately prior to your release from active duty in the Navy, and as you have not persuaded the Board that you were, in fact, unfit for duty, it was unable to recommend any corrective action in your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12362-09

    Original file (12362-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 February 2010. 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 | 04460-02

    Original file (04460-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The Board found that you enlisted in the Marine Corps on 20 June 1969. evaluated by a medical board on 26 September 1969, and given a diagnosis of You disclosed to the medical board that you had suffered a crushing injury to ; years...

  • 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 | 00113-02

    Original file (00113-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 January 2002. The Board found that on 21 November 1994, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) made preliminary findings that you were unfit for duty because of an Ll burst fracture, rated at 30%) and a left acetabular fracture and a coccygeal injury, rated together at 30%) for a combined rating of 50%. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...