Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08377-02
Original file (08377-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 

NAVY  

ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

Docket No: 8377-02
17 December 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 12 December 2002. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures
applicable to the proceedings of this 
consisted of your application, together with all material submitted
naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.

Roard. Documentary material considered by the Board
in support thereof, your

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 Marine Corps on 16 March 1971. During your first
week of training, you complained of right ear pain, and revealed a history of chronic right
ear disease, with recurrent infections since the age of eight. Physical examination disclosed
pathology in each of your ears. You were given a diagnosis of chronic right middle ear
disease, which existed prior to your enlistment, and was not aggravated by your service, and
recommended for discharge without entitlement to disability benefits administered by the
Department of the Navy. You were advised of those findings and recommendations on 14
April 1971, and declined to submit a statement in rebuttal. You were discharged on 21 April
1971 pursuant to the approved findings of the Board of Medical Survey.

The Board was not persuaded that your pre-existing ear condition was incurred in or
aggravated by your brief period of naval service. 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 | CY2006 | 09097-06

    Original file (09097-06.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.The Board found that you served active duty in the US Army from 6 August 1985 to 21 November 1991,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 01596-03

    Original file (01596-03.pdf) 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. The Board found that you were hospitalized on 25 April 1971 for back and left leg pain. 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 | CY2002 | 05132-00

    Original file (05132-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The member had a board of flight surgeons in disability from the VA for a "spinal disc but the member complained of It must be noted The member appealed that The member has been The member testified that all his fitness reports were in the top 1% until he stopped drilling in March 1997. that his cessation of drilling status was secondary to his neck surgery. during which time the member was not on active duty in This is consistent with the member's having been there was no opportunity for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03236-01

    Original file (03236-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 February 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 material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03142-01

    Original file (03142-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 December 2001. With regard to the ear condition which resulted in your administrative separation from the Navy, the Board noted that you accepted the findings of a medical board which evaluated you on 16 September 1968, and determined that you suffered from chronic, bilateral otitis media, with perforation of the left tympanic membrane, which existed prior to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04018-08

    Original file (04018-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 March 2009. The Board concluded that your receipt of substantial disability ratings from the VA effective the day after you were discharged from the Navy is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your Navy record. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06477-02

    Original file (06477-02.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 September 2002. Documentary material considered by the Board 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. In this regard, it is Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01042-01

    Original file (01042-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Prior to submitting this On 27 January 1983, the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) denied your request for an upgrade of your discharge. The Board concluded that the foregoing factors and contentions were insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your record of an NJP and the fact you accepted discharge rather than face trial by court-martial for more than nine months of UA. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04184-02

    Original file (04184-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 03396-03

    Original file (03396-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...