Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 09239-04
Original file (09239-04.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


 JRE
 Docket No. 09239-04
28 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 24 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 was not persuaded that it would be in the interest of justice for it to create a record of an unspecified back injury you allegedly sustained at some time during the August-December 1981 period. In addition, it concluded that creating such an entry would not accord you effective relief, as it would not aid you in obtaining a disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs. In this regard, the Board noted that you had a long history of back pain that began three to four years before you enlisted in the Navy, which you failed to disclose when you underwent your pre-enlistment physical examination. There is no indication in the available records that the cause of that pain was aggravated by your naval service. 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,
                  
         W. DEAN PFIEFFER
         Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01359-09

    Original file (01359-09.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 March 2009. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that you were unfit to reasonably perform the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating by reason of physical disability at the time of to your discharge, the Board was unable to recommend corrective action in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02149-08

    Original file (02149-08.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 2008. You were released from active duty on 17 March 2006, and discharged from the USMCR on 6 December 2006 at the expiration of your enlistment. 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 | 04057-04

    Original file (04057-04.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. In addition, theBoard noted that even if your back and neck disabilities were to be classified as...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05951-08

    Original file (05951-08.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 April 2009. The Board did not consider the issue of your entitlement to a disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs {VA) for a back condition in addition to the 40% rating you receive for the residuals of the gunshot wound to your buttocks, as that issue is within the purview of the VA rather than the Department of the Navy. Consequently, when...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03478-07

    Original file (03478-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 May 2008. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in Support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, The Board found that on 28 January 2005, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) made preliminary findings that you were unfit for duty by reason of bilateral knee conditions, each of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00662-07

    Original file (00662-07.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 January 2008. 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 | CY2004 | 03279-04

    Original file (03279-04.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 March 2005. 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. 2 Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 04601-06

    Original file (04601-06.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 you enlisted in the Navy on 19 February 2003. On 7 September 2005, you were...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 08175-04

    Original file (08175-04.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 October 2005. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01527-07

    Original file (01527-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100JREDocket No. 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...