Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04505-02
Original file (04505-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

JR E
Docket No: 
19 December 2002

450502

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 15 November 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 enlisted in the Marine Corps on 29 may 1969. You received
nonjudicial punishment on two occasions for absence offenses and disobedience, and
requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial of unauthorized absences of 207 days
duration. You underwent a pre-separation physical examination on 29 December 1970, and
were found physically qualified for discharge. You were discharged under other than
honorable conditions on 

5&mtary 1971, in accordance with your request.

The Board could find no indication in the available records that you were “offered” a medical
separation or retirement at any time during your military service, or that you were unfit to
perform your duties by reason of physical disability.
It noted that even if you had been unfit
for duty, you would not have been entitled to disability evaluation, because your discharge in
lieu of trial by court-marital would have precluded such evaluation. Accordingly, your
application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be
furnished upon request.

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 | 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 | CY2001 | 02643-99

    Original file (02643-99.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 May 2ooO. You The Board was not persuaded that you were unfit by reason of physical disability at the time of your discharge from the Marine Corps. 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 | CY2006 | 11305-06

    Original file (11305-06.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 enlisted in the Marine Corps on 29 December 1972. You were discharged...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05860-01

    Original file (05860-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 May 2002. The Board found that you served on active duty in the Navy from 27 August 1996 to 29 August 1997, when you were discharged pursuant to your request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial for an extended absence without authority. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04267-02

    Original file (04267-02.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. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10622-09

    Original file (10622-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 December 2009. 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 | CY2009 | 01986-09

    Original file (01986-09.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. You request for discharge for the good of the service was approved by the discharge authority on 11 March 1975, and you were separated from the Marine Corps with an undesirable discharge on 21 March 1975, Although you apparently suffered from a knee condition during your naval service, you...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08976-08

    Original file (08976-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your allegations of error and preweo in accordance with administrative ocedures applicable to the proceedings of this ry material considered by the Board consisted of together with all material submitted in support - thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. You discharge for the martial for an of however, the Boar 1 April to 9 June In its review of potentially mitig service, and the condition of your because of that c insufficient to w The Board was...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06880-08

    Original file (06880-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 April 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ali 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 | CY2009 | 05598-09

    Original file (05598-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board did not reconsider your request for upgrade of your discharge because you did not submit any new material evidence jin support of that request. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval sitting in executive session, considered your new Your allegations of error and cordance with administrative licable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support...