DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
NAVY
ANNEX
2
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
S
No: 7565-02
Docket
14 November 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 7 November 2002.
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures
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.
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.
It does not appear that you disclosed your history of depression and attention deficit disorder,
as the report of examination makes no mention of either condition.
qualified for enlistment because of a positive test for the presence of drug metabolites, and
you were discharged from the Delayed Entry Program.
drugs, which was negative, and you enlisted in the Navy on 31 October 2000. You were
found physically qualified for discharge on 19 February 2002. You were discharged under
other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct on 22 February 2002, based on a
period of unauthorized absence, and the unlawful use of marijuana.
You underwent a second test for
You were considered not
The Board noted that the available records do not demonstrate that you were unfit for duty
because of a disability that was incurred in or aggravated by your brief period of service in
the Navy.
disability evaluation processing, you would not have been entitled to medical separation or
As you have not demonstrated that your
retirement even if you had been unfit for duty.
In addition, as a discharge by reason of misconduct takes precedence over
discharge by reason of misconduct was erroneous or unjust, the Board was unable to
recommend any corrective action in your case.
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 | CY2005 | 07634-05
Documentary mate jail 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 3 June 1974. Unlike the VA, the military...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02440-07
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 underwent a pre-commissioning physical examination on 12 December 2000, at...
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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06173-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 December 2001. 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 | 04463-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 October 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 | 02290-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 February 2002. Unlike the VA, the military departments are permitted to assign disability ratings only in those cases where the service member has been found unfit for duty. 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 | 05838-05
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 August 2006. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) denied your request for service connection for a back condition on 26 November 1996 and 18 February 2000, and for depression anda back condition on 23 October 2001. 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 | 01979-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 October 2002. The fact that the VA has awarded you substantial disability rating is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record because the VA assigns ratings without regard to the issue of fitness for military duty, and it may raise, lower, or assign ratings throughout a veteran ’s life time. Consequently, when applying for a...
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 | 06072-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 January 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 injustice.