Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04341-01
Original file (04341-01.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: 4341-01
20 May 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 9 May 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.

Due to the length of time which has elapsed since your discharge from the Navy, the Board
was unable to locate a complete copy   of your Disability Evaluation Proceedings, the report
of the line of duty investigation into the circumstances under which you were injured, or the
rationale of the Veterans Administration for determining, on 22 June 1989, that
were incurred in the line of duty.
to apply the presumption of regularity which attaches to official records.
disagreeing with the determination of the Physical Evaluation Board that your injuries were
the proximate result of your improper operation of a motor vehicle at an excessive rate of
speed on a winding mountain road.

  your injuries
In the absence of those records, the Board was constrained
It had no basis for

In view of the foregoing, your application has been denied.
has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon
request.

Accordingly, your application

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 | 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 | CY2002 | 03461-02

    Original file (03461-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive oti 22 August 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 material error or injustice.

  • 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 | 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 | 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 | CY2009 | 04429-09

    Original file (04429-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 February 2010. In this regard, the Board found that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rating officials who determined that your injuries were incurred in the line of duty misread the Findings of the Physical Evaluation Board Proceedings dated 12 May 2008, and erroneously awarded you service connection for the residuals of those injuries. Consequently,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03315-09

    Original file (03315-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    03315-09 7 June 2010 u This is in reference to your applica record pursuant to the provisions 0 Code, section 1552. tion for correction of your naval f title 10 of the United States A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 May 2010. 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 | CY2006 | 10102-06

    Original file (10102-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board found that on 23 October 1985, the Central Physical Evaluation Board (CPEB) made preliminary findings that you were unfit for duty because of the residuals of injuries to the cervical spine that you sustained on 8 December 1984 in a motor vehicle accident, and that the disabilities were not ratable because you were injured as a result of your own misconduct. VA rating official denied your request, based on their determination that your disabilities were residual to the injuries...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 12114-08

    Original file (12114-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 June 2009. The Board did not accept your contention to the effect that a line of duty investigation (LODI) was not conducted 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 | 07459-01

    Original file (07459-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive Your allegations of error and session, considered your application on 22 August 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance 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. The Board rejected your contention to the effect that the absence of documents...