DEPARTMENTOFTHE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAV Y ANNE X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
JRE
Docket No: 8 182-02
25 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. 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 Navy on 22 November 1972. On 11 December
1972, a medical board determined that you suffered from right terminal
residual to a gunshot wound to your foot you had sustained prior to enlisting. The medical
board determined that you failed to meet the minimum physical standards for enlistment
because of that condition, and recommended that you be discharged without entitlement to
disability benefits administered by the Department of the Navy. The medical board made an
incidental finding that you had a congenitally absent toe, but did not consider that condition
disqualifying. After being advised of the findings and recommendation of the medical board,
You were discharged from the Navy on 14
you declined to submit a statement in rebuttal.
December 1972, in accordance with the approved findings and recommendation of the
medical board.
paraxial hemimelia
In the absence of evidence that demonstrates you were unfit by reason of a physical disability
incurred in or aggravated by your 23 days of active service, 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 | CY2002 | 06435-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 1 February 2002. Your were discharged on 27 July 1972 pursuant to the approved findings of a medical board that you failed to meet the minimum physical standards for enlistment because of the residual effects of a knee injury you sustained in January 1972, which you failed to disclose when you underwent your pre- enlistment physical examination. Consequently,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07665-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 June 2008. You were discharged from the Navy on 16 June 1972, having completed 16 days of active service, in accordance with the approved recommendation of the medical board. 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 | CY2008 | 01325-08
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 September 1972. You were honorably discharged...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 09278-02
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. 2001, and you were discharged by reason of physical disability on 1 February lo%, and recommended that you be discharged by reason of You accepted the findings of the PEB The Board concluded that in view of your...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 03396-03
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 September 2003. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. On 20 March 2002, the Naval Medical Center, Portsmouth, Virginia, recommended that you It gave you diagnoses of be discharged from the Navy because of your unsuitability for continued military service due to your...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00946-00
On 18 September 1972, based on a review of records from January and July 1972, the VA increased your rating to 30%. The Board carefully considered your contention that your condition should have been rated at 30% or higher by the Navy in 1963, but it was not persuaded that the condition was ratable in excess of 10% at the time of your discharge. The fact that the VA has rated your condition in excess of 10% disabling since 14 October 1970 was not considered probative of In this regard, it...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06790-07
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 enlisted in the Navy on 1 October 2002. The VA awarded the 10% rating...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10641-02
H A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 May 2003. That Board, which met on 12 July 1973, determined that you were not fit for duty, and rezommended that you be discharged without entitlement to disability benefits administered by the Department of the Navy. You were discharged in accordance with the approved findings and recommendation of the medical board, and your request, on 27 July 1972.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Mon Sep 25 10_08_50 CDT 2000
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 April 1999. The officials who rated your condition were required to choose one of the three options under finding (9) in order to establish your basic eligibility for disability benefits administered by the Department of the Navy. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04184-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 November 2002. On 9 June 1997, the PEB found you unfit for duty because of your back pain, which it rated at severance pay. 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.