DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No. 03702-04
11 March 2005
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 10 March
2005. 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 rejected your contention to the effect that a civilian medical
record demonstrates that you were not intoxicated when you caused an
automobile accident on 7 November 1992. It noted that a hospital
record you submitted indicates that results of a “tox screen” and
urinalysis were negative; however, another record you did not submit
indicates that you were highly intoxicated when the accident
occurred, with a blood alcohol level of “158 mg percent”.
The Board was not persuaded that you were unfit for service by reason of
physical disability when you were discharged by reason of misconduct on 31
April 1993. It noted that you had recovered from the injuries you sustained
in the motor vehicle accident the previous November, and that you were
considered physically qualified for separation when examined on 17 February
1993. In addition, as it appears that your injuries were incurred as a
result of your own misconduct, it is unlikely that you would have been
entitled to disability benefits even if you had been found unfit for duty,
and not discharged by reason of misconduct.
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.
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 | CY2006 | 10102-06
The Board found that on 23 October 1985, the Central Physical Evaluation Board (CPEB) made preliminary findings that you were unfit for duty because of the residuals of injuries to the cervical spine that you sustained on 8 December 1984 in a motor vehicle accident, and that the disabilities were not ratable because you were injured as a result of your own misconduct. VA rating official denied your request, based on their determination that your disabilities were residual to the injuries...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07156-06
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 enlisted in the Marine Corps on 1 March 1989. It noted that you would not...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07108-00
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 this connection it substantially concurred with the The Board was not persuaded that the line of duty(LOD)/misconduct determination made in your case is erroneous or unjust. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03820-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 February 2011. 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 | CY2010 | 01068-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 January 2011. In addition, the Board noted that although the VA may increase a veteran's disability ratings at any time to reflect changes in the degree of severity of rated conditions, disability determinations made by the military departments are fixed as of the date of the service member’s release from active duty or discharge. Consequently, when applying...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 08057-98
to your accident, 21 June to 7 July and 20 July to 5 August 1978. The second NJP was for the two periods of UA prior The first was for two periods of Punishment On 15 December 1978, CMC directed your transfer to the Marine Corps Barracks at Camp Pendleton, CA for six months of limited duty. The record also reflects that you A $50 forfeiture was On 18 June 1979 a medical board found you unfit for full duty and opined that this status would not change with further treatment.
Probably the most important evidence is the police report, which states the roads were wet and that applicant’s car hit the other vehicle prior to reaching Pierce Road intersection. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel reviewed the Air Force opinions and contends that the entire thrust of this application is to show that the LOD IO did not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079581C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Formal line of duty investigations must be conducted for injuries or death involving the abuse of alcohol or other drugs. The applicant’s blood alcohol level was sufficient evidence, which would serve as a basis to establish “a degree of certainty that a reasonable person” would be convinced that the applicant’s automobile accident and subsequent injuries were the result...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04012-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 February 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The PEB made preliminary findings that you were unfit for duty by reason of physical disability incurred as a result of your own misconduct, and therefore not ratable. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00582-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 October 2008. Your receipt of substantial disability ratings from the VA for multiple conditions that VA rating officials determined were related to your service in the Navy is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record, because those ratings were assigned without regard to the issue of your fitness for military duty on the date of...