DEPARTMENTOFTHE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC
20370-5100
JRE
Docket No: 6819-01
11 October 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. You requested numerous
amendments to your DD Form 214..
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 12 September 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. It also considered the
submission of your counsel.
The Board noted that there is no basis for
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. Your alleged transfer to the Naval Reserve in 1992, if it in fact occurred, was
erroneous, as the discharge authority directed that you be discharged under other than
honorable conditions by reason of misconduct.
amending a DD Form 214 to reflect subsequent service.
service credit and awards and decorations for the period ending on 15 October 1992 is
unsubstantiated. The alleged error in the address of your next of kin is an insignificant
matter not warranting consideration by the Board.
You were not entitled to be retired by
reason of physical disability in 1992 because you have not demonstrated that you were unfit
to perform your duties by reason of physical disability at that time.
discharge by reason of misconduct takes precedence over disability evaluation processing, you
would not have been entitled to disability evaluation even if you were arguably unfit for duty.
It is significant that as late as 5 October 1998, the Department of Veterans Affairs determined
that you did not suffer from any service connected conditions rated above 0% disabling.
Although the Board upgraded your discharge to general several years ago,
clemency, that action did not excuse your misconduct, or alter the underlying basis
Your claim for additional sea
In addition, as a
as a matter of
for your
discharge.
In view of the foregoing, your application has been denied.
members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
The names and votes of the
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.
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.
In this regard, it is
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05991-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 February 2003. After reviewing the report of that examination on 14 April 2000, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) made preliminary findings that you were unfit for duty because of residuals of your cancer, which it rated at 0%. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08408-02
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 | 01675-01
that you seek treatment for the post traumatic stress disorder from the Department of Veterans Affairs following your separation. You were discharged from the Navy on 16 April 1992 by reason of CONDITIONS You underwent a pre-separation physical - PERSONALITY DISORDERS ”. “OTHER PHYSICAL/MENTAL In his opinion, He also recommended The fact that you suffered from post traumatic stress disorder during your naval service was not considered probative of the existence of material error or...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 05807-05
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 Navy on 28 June 1998. Effective 13 November 1999, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07565-02
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 | CY2001 | 00216-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 October 2001. consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, limited portions of your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The Board was not persuaded that you suffered from post traumatic stress disorder in 1945 that you were unfit for duty in 1950 because of a disability which was incurred...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03507-02
December 1997, the PEB made preliminary findings that you remained unfit for duty, and that your disability was ratable at 20%. VA code 527 1 provides for a 20% rating for marked limitation of motion of the ankle, and 10% for moderate limitation of motion. 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 | CY2004 | 03702-04
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 March 2005. The Board rejected your contention to the effect that a civilian medical record demonstrates that you were not intoxicated when you caused an automobile accident on 7 November 1992. 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 | CY2005 | 06402-05
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 Marine Corps as an enlisted member from 27...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09429-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 June 2011. The Board concluded that the available records do not demonstrate that you were unfit for duty by reason of physical disability at the time of your discharge. 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.