Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07645-01
Original file (07645-01.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: 7645-01
7 January 2002

Dear

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 3 January 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 in the Navy from 8 to 30 July 2000, when you were
discharged by reason of erroneous enlistment and assigned a reenlistment code of RE-4.
Your discharge was based on your complaints of shortness of breath, and disclosure of a
previously concealed pre-service history of treatment for asthma, to include the use of
inhalers, steroid medications, and, apparently, a nebulizer. The Board concluded that had
you disclosed that history during your enlistment processing, you would not have been
permitted to enlist. It was not persuaded that your reenlistment code is erroneous, or that it
would be in the interest of justice to correct your record in such a manner as to facilitate
your reenlistment in the armed forces. 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 | 07445-01

    Original file (07445-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 January 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 | CY2001 | 06258-01

    Original file (06258-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 January 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. On 5 March 1995 you were referred for evaluation because of a previously undisclosed history of outpatient psychiatric counseling and suicidal ideation. the psychiatric evaluation with its diagnosis that you suffer from...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11176-06

    Original file (11176-06.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.You enlisted in the Navy on 20 November 2002 at age 20. After review, a clinical psychologist...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06403-02

    Original file (06403-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 December 2002. The Board concluded that you were not physically qualified for military service, and that you would not have been permitted to enlist had you disclosed the disqualifying conditions. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00848-02

    Original file (00848-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 June 2002. On 10 October 1991 you were notified that separation action was being initiated by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment, as evidenced by the diagnosis of enuresis. 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 | 03498-02

    Original file (03498-02.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 procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. you were referred to the On 15 July 1999 you were notified that separation action was being initiated by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by the personality disorder....

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04215-02

    Original file (04215-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 December 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. You completed a Statement of Medical History on that date in which you denied any history of treatment or symptoms of a heart condition,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02878-02

    Original file (02878-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 October 2002. The Board also concluded that given your hostility toward military authority, you are unsuitable for military service, irrespective of the validity of your diagnosis. 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 | 06098-01

    Original file (06098-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    evaluated by a Navy Psychologist and recommended for separation from the Marine Corps basic training due to failure to adapt. An entry level separation and problems related to You were diagnosed with a On 9 June 1999 you were notified that separation action was being initiated by reason of convenience of the government due to defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by the diagnosed personality disorder. You were so discharged on 17 June 1999...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02904-02

    Original file (02904-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive un 3 October 2002. 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 to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.