Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 04209-03
Original file (04209-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE  NAVY 

B O A R D   FOR  C O R R E C T I O N O F N A V A L 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   JRE 

Docket No.  04209-03 
2 1  October 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 9 October 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.  In addition, the Board considered the 
comments of your counsel. 

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, the Board noted that you 
underwent a pre-separation physical examination on 12 November 
1992.  You were found fit for duty, notwithstanding the 
extensive medical history and numerous ongoing complaints you 
reported at that time.  The physician who conducted the physical 
did not find any of your conditions disqualifying for continued 
service or separation, and you were considered fit for 
separation.  The Board was not persuaded that you were unfit to 
perform the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating by 
reason of physical disability at the time of your discharge. 
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, 



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 04790-03

    Original file (04790-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PEW), dated 2 June 2003, a copy of which is attached. (6), concerning section A, item 8b (physical fitness test (PFT)) of the fitness report form, says "Use code 'NMED' [not medically qualified] if the MRO warine reported on] is unable to take or pass the PFT because of a physical (medical) condition." The "NMED" entry in Item 8b of the fitness report, whi.ch is further...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 07244-03

    Original file (07244-03.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 was unable to find the contested fitness report was in reprisal for your request mast. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02761-03

    Original file (02761-03.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. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 28 March 2003, a copy of which is attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08114-02

    Original file (08114-02.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 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 | CY2000 | 05329-00

    Original file (05329-00.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 April 2001. In this rcgard, the Board noted that in order for a service member to qualify for disability retirement, he must be found unfit to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating by reason of physical disability ratable at or above 30% disabling. The VA assigns disability ratings without regard to the issue of fitness for military duty.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 04217-03

    Original file (04217-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 6 May 2003, a copy of which is attached. 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. Per MCO 1610.11C1 the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 5 May 2003 to consider Staff serges-etition contained in...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08842-02

    Original file (08842-02.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 April 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 | CY2003 | 07987-03

    Original file (07987-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    V I R G I N I A 2 2 1 3 4 - 5 1 03 I N R E P L Y R E F E R TO: 1610 MMER/PERB s ~ p 1 7 2003 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj : MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF CAPTAIN p USMC .. . Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 10 September 2003 to consider captain- petition contained in reference (a). Finally, the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02963-03

    Original file (02963-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 May 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 | CY2002 | 03175-02

    Original file (03175-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 January 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...