Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04440-01
Original file (04440-01.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: 4440-01
26 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.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 14 February 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 Navy from 13 October 1964 to 13
July 1965, when you were discharged by reason of unsuitability due to a passive dependent
which existed prior to your enlistment. There is no indication in the
personality disorder, 
your naval record, or in information submitted by you, that you were unfit to perform the
duties of your rate by reason of a physical disability which was incurred in or aggravated by
your service.
were separated or retired by reason of physical disability, and your application has been
denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

Accordingly, there is no basis for correcting your record to show that you

Your request for correction of your DD Form 214 to reflect your receipt of the National
Defense Service Medal should be sent to the Director, National Personnel Records Center.

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 | 03798-02

    Original file (03798-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 September 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and Board. months of service in the Air Force from August 1974 until February 1976 and more than two years of service in the Army National Guard from December 1981 until February 1984. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is' on...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04454-01

    Original file (04454-01.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. 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 | 04029-01

    Original file (04029-01.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. 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 | 08408-02

    Original file (08408-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of session, considered your injustice were reviewed in applicable to the proceedin consisted of your appli naval record records were lost. Documentary material considered by the Board together with all material submitted in support thereof, your s, regulations and policies. applyi g for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the : W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Director

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02370-01

    Original file (02370-01.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. The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 27 April 1977. 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 | 04193-02

    Original file (04193-02.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 November 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. Applicable regulations require an entry level separation in almost all cases in which an individual is separated or processed for separation within the first 180...

  • 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 | 00760-02

    Original file (00760-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 April 2002. You completed an application for enlistment on that date in which you falsely denied having been previously discharged from the Armed Forces by reason of physical disability. 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 | 05262-01

    Original file (05262-01.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. demonstrates that your discharge by reason of misconduct was improper, and establishes that you were unfit to perform your duties by reason of a physical disability which was incurred in or aggravated by your brief period of naval service, the Board was unable to recommend In the absence of evidence which any corrective action in your case. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 09126-04

    Original file (09126-04.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 on 26 April 2002, the Physical Evaluation Board made preliminary findings that...