Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08854-02
Original file (08854-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL
NAVY 

2 

ANNEX

  RECORD

S

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

JRE
Docket No: 8854-02
26 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 2 1 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 served on active duty in the Navy from 11 December 1981 to 22
December 1984, when you were discharged by reason of motion sickness, a condition, not a
disability, interfering with your performance of duty.
of RE-3X, as provided for in regulations   in effect at that time.

You were assigned a reenlistment code

The Board noted that your condition is one of a number of conditions, such as sleep walking,
stammering, and allergy to uniform materials, which may render a service member
unsuitable for service, but do not amount to physical disabilities As you have not
demonstrated that you suffered from a condition that rendered you unfit by reason of
physical disability, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in your case.
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
panel will be furnished upon request.

The names and votes of the members of the

It is regretted that the circumstances of your
  be
taken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and

  case are such that favorable action cannot

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 | 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 | CY2007 | 10935-07

    Original file (10935-07.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. As you have not demonstrated that any of those additional conditions rendered you unfit to reasonably perform the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating by reason of physical disability, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in your case. Consequently, when applying...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08867-02

    Original file (08867-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 November 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. it is _ Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03605-02

    Original file (03605-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 November 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance applicable to the proceedings of this Board. In addition, it considered the comments of your counsel with administrative regulations and procedures Your allegations of error and Documentary material considered by the Board After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00113-02

    Original file (00113-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 January 2002. The Board found that on 21 November 1994, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) made preliminary findings that you were unfit for duty because of an Ll burst fracture, rated at 30%) and a left acetabular fracture and a coccygeal injury, rated together at 30%) for a combined rating of 50%. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04463-02

    Original file (04463-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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 | 03604-02

    Original file (03604-02.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. 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 | 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05066-02

    Original file (05066-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 October 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 | 08108-02

    Original file (08108-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    US consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the Fficient to establish the existence of probable material error or a pre-enlistment physical examination on 16 November history contained in the Report of Medical History you history of chicken pox and “gas”. The 30% rating was made (BVA) found that the The Board was not pers service during the 23 Aug service history of bowel ADT, it is very likely th and not aggravated by y that you were unfit for d is a prerequisite...