DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVYANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
\
Docket No: 4708-02
23 December 2002
This is in reference to your request for reconsideration -of 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 12 December 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
It noted that the decision of the Board, in a previous case, to upgrade Mr. B...
The Board concluded that the new medical evidence you submitted was cumulative with that
previously submitted, and that it provided no basis for reversing the Board’s previous
decisions in your case of 13 April 1999 and 13 February 2002. The statement concerning
your service during May and June 1972 which was prepared for Mr. C.
..‘s signature was not
considered probative of your contention that you suffered from post traumatic stress disorder
when you committed
service.
discharge does not mandate or suggest that your discharge be upgraded. As your
Representative in Congress was advised on 30 May 2002, the Board conducts a fair and
independent review of each case under consideration. Favorable action by the Board in a
case similar to yours does not invalidate the unfavorable decision in your case. In addition,
the Board noted that the panel which considered Mr. B..
case may have misinterpreted the
recommendation of the psychiatric advisor, in that the summary of his opinion and
recommendation in the Proceedings of the Board in his case is substantially more favorable to
‘s
.
the offenses which resulted in your discharge for the good of
‘s
him than the opinion and recommendation contained in the complete text of the advisory
opinion.
The Board concluded that your service was properly characterized with as under other than
honorable conditions, and that you have not demonstrated that it would be in the interest of
justice to upgrade your discharge. 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
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08069-02
In your current application, you again request removing the original report, but you also add a new request to replace it with a revised report the reporting senior has submitted for the pertinent period. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report. Nothing has been furnished with reference (a) that documents any factual errors associated with the fitness report - Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03613-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application& 3 October 2002. One of your As it did during its initial review of your request, the Board concluded that your present state of health and physical fitness, and your desire to reenlist in the Navy, are insufficient to warrant changing the basis for your discharge or assigning you a more favorable reenlistment code. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07221-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive Augu%t 2002. good of The Board found that you were discharged from the Marine Corps on 9 July 1976, with a discharge under other than honorable conditions, pursuant to your resignation for the the service to escape trial by court-martial for multiple serious offenses. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07641-09
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, the Board’s file on your previous case, 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04768-01
The first action, You reenlisted in the Navy on 23 November 1998 and applied to the Board for additional corrective action. However, individual is advanced at a later date. you are again requesting that your reenlistment You also request The Board concluded that the two previous actions of the Board provided sufficient relief in your case.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03312-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 January 2011. 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 | 07753-01
You requested removal of your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board and “promotion reconsideration:” Your additional request to remove the reviewing officer ’s certification from your fitness report for 31 December 1998 to 31 July 1999 was not considered, as your previous request to remove the entire report, docket number 5441-01, was considered and denied on 30 August 2001, and you have offered no new and material supporting evidence or other...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 00960-03
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 May 2003. 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 corrvtion of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04131-01
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 22 October 2001, a copy of which is attached. The report in question is a Transfer/Regular report. Although the report is not signed by the member, he was e. The performance evaluation has been in the member ’s record for over six years.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01098-07
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 203705100BJGDocket No:1098-071 March 2007This 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.You requested, in effect, that the fitness reports for 31 (sic) September 2001 to 10 March 2002 and 11 March to 30 June 2002 be modified, in accordance with the reviewing officer’s (RO’s) letter dated 11 August...