DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No. 00306-05
24 October 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 14
October 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. In
this connection, the Board did not accept your contention to the
effect that you were improperly denied the opportunity to remain on
active duty in a permanent limited duty status (PLD) until 31 January
2000, when you would have completed 20 years of active duty service
and qualified for transfer to the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve. The
Board noted that you were severely disabled when the Physical
Evaluation Board (PEE) considered your case on 17 December 1998, and
recommended that you be permanently retired with a disability rating
of 100%. The PEB had been advised on 28 September 1998, by direction
of your commanding officer, that you were not
motivated to remain on active duty, and that he did not recommend that you
be authorized another period of limited duty. In addition, the PEE reviewed
your rebuttal to the medical board report, in which you presented
information to the effect that you were more severely impaired by the
multiple sclerosis than indicated in the report. The Board also noted that
after you were advised of the findings of the PEB on 15 January 1999, you
did not accept the findings without qualification, nor were you required to
do so. You accepted the findings contingent upon your being retained on
active duty in a PLD status until 31 March 1999, and your request was
granted. The fact that the approval of your request for correction of your
record could result in your becoming entitled to concurrent disability and
retired pay, or possibly combat-related special compensation, under
legislation enacted after you were retired, was considered insufficient to
demonstrate that your retirement in 1999 was erroneous or unjust.
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,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07552-08
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX JRE WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 Docket No. 07552-08 27 May 2009 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj:
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07396-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application OR 22 August 2002. You also received multiple ratings of 0% and one of 10 % for The Board was not persuaded that your mood disorder was ratable above 30% disabling at the time of your permanent retirement. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00397
However, after the second heart attack with triple-bypass surgery in July 1998, the recurrence and hospitalization for sinusitis, and two major back surgeries with subsequent decline in health prior to his permanent retirement he feels his legal counsel did not take into consideration the combined disabilities. The remaining pertinent medical facts are contained in the evaluation prepared by the BCMR Medical Consultant at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: While he...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07295-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 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 | CY2001 | 02924-00
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. We have determined the evidence in this case does not (a) which requested comments and He was discharged on The petitioner's case history, contained in reference (a), was 2. thoroughly reviewed in accordance with reference The following comments and recommendations are provided: (b) and is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04372-02
your back condition to Navy or Marine Corps officials after you underwent spinal disc surgery in 1990. The Board noted that although you suffered acute exacerbations of your back condition during periods of military duty in 1997 and 1999, you did not sustain any significant trauma to your spine during those , and there was permanent aggravation of the preexisting periods, you were not “injured” The exacerbations of your condition, one condition during those periods of military duty. VASRD...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05608-06
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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Navy Personnel Command dated 21 August 2007, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 01794-04
01794-04 13 August 2004This 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 29 July 2004. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00171-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 February 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ali 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120022462
Overall, several errors were committed in relation to her pay in December 1998 and then her retirement formula, computation of her retired pay, the length of time she was placed on the TDRL, and the more recent debt that occurred as a result of an audit of her pay records by DFAS. The applicant provides: * Self-authored breakdown of each LES * Listing of what appears to be her credit report * Divorce decree * Audit Request Form * Letter, dated 3 August 2009, from DFAS * Letter, dated 22...