Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 01325-05
Original file (01325-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

JRE
 Docket No. 01325-05
 26 September 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 22 September 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, it concurred with the determination of the Combat-related Special Compensation (CRSC) Branch, Naval Council of Personnel Boards, since re-designated as the Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards, that you have not demonstrated that your disabilities are combat-related, with the exception of your prostate cancer. The Board noted that the available records do not show the circumstances under which the majority of your disabilities were incurred; however, available records indicate that your bilateral shoulder conditions resulted from your participation in athletic activities and operation of heavy equipment, which are not combat-related activities .

In view of the foregoing, your application has been denied. 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 PFEIFFER
 Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 09062-04

    Original file (09062-04.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYBOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 JREDocket 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...

  • 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 | CY2004 | 10044-04

    Original file (10044-04.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 September 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 | CY2005 | 02975-05

    Original file (02975-05.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 | 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 | 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 | 02264-06

    Original file (02264-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 February 2007. Your case for Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) is not supported by the relevant documentary information provided.2. Reconsideration by the CRSC Branch is appropriate under any of the following circumstances:(1) You believe this decision is incorrect due to an administrative error or incorrect/incomplete information.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 01928-05

    Original file (01928-05.doc) 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 noted that SMC is considered combat-related only in those cases where all of the conditions upon which the award of SMC is based are also combat-related. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07430-05

    Original file (07430-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    07430-05 11 September 2006This 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 8 September 2006. 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 | CY2005 | 09379-05

    Original file (09379-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYBOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370~5 100 JREDocket 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...