Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02015-03
Original file (02015-03.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TRG
 Docket No: 2015-03
27 August 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 19 August 2003. 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.

You enlisted in the Navy on 12 November 1996 at age 22. You then served in an excellent manner for over two years. However, in the performance evaluation for the period 16 June1999 to 15 March 2000, you were assigned an adverse mark of 1.0 in the category of personal job accomplishment/initiative. The individual trait average (ITA)is a marginal 2.71 and you were not recommended for promotion or retention in the Navy. The evaluation comments state, in part, as follows:

Professional performance, productivity and ability to complete assigned tasks in a timely fashion severely hindered by chronic inability to deploy aboard ship due to self-perceived medical condition affecting her motor skills and causing profound weakness in the lower extremities. Despite an exhaustive battery of physiological and psychological tests performed over a 3 month period .... (including 9 days of inpatient testing), the Naval Medical establishment detected no known physical ailment and verified her “fit for full duty.” Onset of ailment twice coincided with arrival aboard ship the evening prior to getting underway for

FAQ dets. On both occasions, she was ambulanced off CVN-75 to NAVHOSP Portsmouth Command is not implying that (she) is a malingerer, but the likelihood that this mysterious ailment will again manifest itself renders her not worldwide deployable and unfit for arduous sea duty. ...




You stated in your rebuttal, in part, as follows:

...      I would like to place emphasis on the fact that at no time was I attempting to malinger. I take my job very seriously, and have tried to perform my duties to the best of my abilities, despite my physical limitations.

In his endorsement to your rebuttal, the commanding officer stated, in part, as follows:

...      (Her) disdain and lack of confidence in modern Naval Medicine is unfounded, especially in view of the extraordinary lengths they went to in trying to detect a physical ailment.

...      (Her) knowledge of the AZ rating is more than satisfactory. Her execution of her duties was also satisfactory during those times when she was not experiencing his mysterious syndrome. Since the Command .... cannot predict the next onset of this syndrome, she is effectively unable to deploy with the squadron for fear it will crop up at sea and endanger her safety aboard ship. Accordingly, she is not recommended for retention.

The next evaluation for the period 16 March to 10 November 2000 is also adverse in that you were not recommended for promotion or retention in the Navy. The ITA was a marginal 2.57. The evaluation states that your performance of duty had been excellent but that your inability to deploy “had seriously impacted her value to the United States Naval Service.” You were released from active duty on 11 November 2000 with your service characterized as honorable. At that time, you were not recommended for reenlistment and were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.

You state in your application, in effect, that your performance of duty was excellent and your undiagnosed medical condition should not result in the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code.

The Board concluded that your inability to deploy, based on an undiagnosed medical condition, as documented in two consecutive adverse performance evaluations, was sufficient to support the






















2
assignment of the RE-4 reenlistment code. 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.


























































































3

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500656

    Original file (ND0500656.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (B, C, and D).The Applicant infers that she was denied due process during her administrative discharge from the Navy. Additionally, in response to the medical issues raised by the Applicant, the Board reviewed the Applicant's health records and found that the Applicant was...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02338-03

    Original file (02338-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To : Secretary of the Navy Docket No: 2338-03 12 September 2003 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY B O A R D F O R C O R R E C T I O N O F NAVAL R E C O R D S 2 N A V Y A N N E X W A S H I N G T O N D C 2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0 T ~ G Subj : REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF - Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted member in the Naval Reserve, filed an application with this Board requesting that his record be...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03010-00

    Original file (03010-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ” He was found fully fit for duty, and clinic for psychological testing. patient’s medical record. According to the as was “likely” thought to be “chronic and evaluation were diagnoses of somatization fit for duty, and the No on 16 OCTOBER psychological d. SF 600, Chronological Record of Medical Care, from USS Enterprise, dated 05 APR 1982, was sea_” Per this report documented results of a psychological evaluation per the request of the ship evaluation of a “possible life at examination at...

  • CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2008-174

    Original file (2008-174.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I am relieving this officer of responsibilities of the Operations Officer, Navigator and Tactical Action Officer. Since she was standing watch in the CIC during the transit, she could not see which chart the bridge team was using. states that on the comparison scale in an OER, a Reporting Officer “shall fill in the circle that most closely reflects the Reporting Officer’s ranking of the Reported- on Officer relative to all other officers of the same grade the Reporting Officer has...

  • CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2004-007

    Original file (2004-007.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This final decision, dated July 29, 2004, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record by removing a very poor special officer evaluation report (SOER) that he received for his service as the Executive Officer (XO) of the cutter XXX from June 1 until October 8, 2001, when, he alleged, he was relieved of duty because of a personality conflict with his commanding officer (CO); by removing the regular OER that he received...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600599

    Original file (ND0600599.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY ex-YN3, USNDocket No. I, T_ T. R_, request the members of the board to please review my situation and reconsider changing my character of separation to “Honorable” and my re-entry code to “RE-1”, allowing me the opportunity to serve the Navy once again. I recommend that YN2 R_ receive a characterization of service of Honorable.”040330: Applicant found physically qualified...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 04079-04

    Original file (04079-04.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.You reenlisted in the Navy on 13 June 2001 as a petty officer second class (DK2; E-5). However,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500027

    Original file (ND0500027.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The ride out to sea was on my part life threatening, Every time I went underway aboard this destroyer I had to be confined to my rack from seasickness. After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record and issues submitted the Board determined that clemency was not warranted and that the sentence awarded the Applicant at his court-martial was appropriate for the offenses he committed. The Manual for courts-martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03392-01

    Original file (03392-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 March 2002. The members of the chain of command were present, made statements and were available to answer questions . He then told LT HI who then called Ms. D. The Board also considered the statement of the retired chief petty officer who stated that you were not derelict in your duties while you were treating him and that he did not see any disrespect.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00073

    Original file (PD2013 00073.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Conversion Disorder/PTSD Condition .The CI injured her right arm 27 August 2000 when she fell aboard her ship during at-sea ship to ship refueling operations when the two ships collided. The VA combined the two mental health conditions, PTSD with conversion disorder manifested with limited functioning of the right arm and hand condition and rated at 10% based on her level of functioning at the time of the C&P examination in 2006. While the PEB separated the PTSD from the conversion...