Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10638-02
Original file (10638-02.PDF) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 

NAVY 

ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

JRE
Docket No. 10638-02
6 June 2003

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 5 June 2003.
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Board.
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 consisted

Your allegations of error and

In this regard, the Board noted that 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.
ulcer condition was not incurred or aggravated by your active
service in the Navy, which extended from 30 May to 25 June 1963.
In addition, it noted that the personality traits that prevented
you from successfully completing military training, and formed
the basis for your discharge,
do not amount a disability under
the laws administered by the Department of the Navy.
In the
absence of evidence that demonstrates you were unfit by reason
of physical disability incurred in or aggravated while you were
entitled to basic pay, the Board was unable to recommend any
corrective action in your case.
has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel
will be furnished upon request.

Accordingly, your application

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such
that favorable action cannot be taken.
the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and
material evidence or other matter not previously considered by
the Board.
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.

You are entitled to have

In this regard,

Sincerely,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05837-02

    Original file (05837-02.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 February 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 | CY2005 | 06153-05

    Original file (06153-05.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 underwent a pre-enlistment physical examination on 23 June 2001 and were...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02440-07

    Original file (02440-07.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 underwent a pre-commissioning physical examination on 12 December 2000, at...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 03068-03

    Original file (03068-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    on 13 December Following your discharge, the Department of Veterans Affairs denied your request for service connection for a mental disorder, after determining that you did not suffer from a mental disorder that was incurred in or aggravated by your military service. indicate that you were diagnosed or treated for a mental disorder during your enlistment, duty on 12 November 1982, physical examination. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06301-06

    Original file (06301-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 January 2007. On 9 July 2004, you were advised that you were being recommended for discharge by reason of the personality disorder, and misconduct/drug abuse. 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 | 04766-03

    Original file (04766-03.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. Due to administrative error, your DD Form 214 indicates that you were both discharged from the Marine Corps and retired by reason of physical disability on that date. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10767-08

    Original file (10767-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    oe A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 September 2009. You did not complete any Reserve drilis or active duty service after that date. 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 | 02115-03

    Original file (02115-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 October 2003. The issue of your entitlement to compensation for illnesses or injuries you believe were incurred in or aggravated by your military service is a matter within the purview of the Department of Veterans Affairs, rather than the Department of the Navy. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 03747-03

    Original file (03747-03.PDF) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 June 2003. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. In addition, the Board noted that you advised a Navy medical board during February 1980 that you had a pre-service history of knee pain with strenuous activity, and that you had experienced pain under similar circumstances...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06513-06

    Original file (06513-06.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 in order for a service member to be retired by reason of physical disability,...