DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVALRECORDS
2
NAVY
ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
Docket No: 8863-02
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 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 were released from active duty on 16 December 1994 and
(TDRL). On 31 January 1997, the Chief
transferred to the Temporary Disability Retired List
of Naval Personnel advised you that you would be permanently retired by reason of physical
disability effective 1 February 1997, with a disability rating of 40%.
The Board noted that a DD Form 214 is issued only upon a service member ’s release from
active duty. As you were not released from active duty on 1 February 1997, you were not
issued a new DD Form 214 at that time. There is no basis for correcting the form you were
issued on 16 December 1994 to show that you were permanently retired on that date, rather
than transferred to the TDRL.
In view of the foregoing, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the
members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
A copy of the 31 January 1997 letter from the Chief of Naval Personnel is attached.
I
apologize for the poor copy, but it is the best available.
Form 214.
I suggest you attach it to your DD
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 | 08848-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 February 2003. a 30% disability rating for labyrinthitis. 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 | CY2004 | 01794-04
01794-04 13 August 2004This 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 29 July 2004. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08114-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 August 2003. 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 | CY2009 | 08664-09
”A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 June 2010. On 1 October 1996 the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) reviewed that report of that examination and determined that you remained unfit | for duty due to a seizure disorder, which was ratable at 20%. 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 | 04816-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 July 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 | CY2001 | 08355-01
In this regard, the E3oard noted that the VA assigns disability ratings without regard to the issue of fitness for military duty, whereas the military departments rate only those conditions which render a service member unfit for duty. The Board concluded that had the PEB had found your arthritis to be unfitting as of 1 October 1994, it is unlikely that you would have received a substantial rating for that condition, because substantial deductions would have been taken from the rating for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 06901-03
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 September 2003. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. You were permanently retired by reason of physical with a disability rating The Board was not persuaded that you should have been permanently retired on 30 December 1967, TDRL. Consequently, when applying for a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 04905-06
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions from Headquarters Marine Corps dated10 August 2006, with enclosure, and 20 September 2006, copies ofwhich are attached.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 reference requests an advisory opinionto correct his record to show that he was promoted to the rank of major prior to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 01903-05
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.On 12 June 1995 while you were serving on active duty in the grade of master sergeant, a physical...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03507-02
December 1997, the PEB made preliminary findings that you remained unfit for duty, and that your disability was ratable at 20%. VA code 527 1 provides for a 20% rating for marked limitation of motion of the ankle, and 10% for moderate limitation of motion. 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.