Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03863-06
Original file (03863-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
                                                      WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


JRE
Docket No. 03863-06
11 May 2007






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 May 2007. 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 found that you sustained minor injuries in a single vehicle motorcycle accident on 15 October 1973 when you lost control of the motorcycle. The Board was unable to obtain the report of the line of duty investigation into the circumstances of the accident; however, the Board noted that the accident report that was prepared by a civilian police officer indicates your use of alcohol and the operation of the motor cycle at an excessive speed contributed to the accident. As there were no significant residuals of your injuries, you were not referred to the Navy disability system prior to your release from active duty
in 1976. On 21 January 1977, Veterans Administration (VA) officials determined that your injuries were sustained as a result of your willful misconduct, and that determination was confirmed on 24 June 2004.

The Board rejected your unsubstantiated contention to the effect that the injuries you sustained on 15 October 1973 were incurred in the line of duty and not as a result of your misconduct. 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 | CY2006 | 10102-06

    Original file (10102-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY1999 | 08057-98

    Original file (08057-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06879-02

    Original file (06879-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Documentary material considered by the Board in executive 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 04359-06

    Original file (04359-06.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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07108-00

    Original file (07108-00.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 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110020559

    Original file (20110020559.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states: * the investigating officer (IO) did not conduct a thorough investigation into the FSM's death * it appears the IO made his decision based on hearsay information told to the police officer at the scene of the accident * the IO stated in his findings that there was no toxicology examination and that is incorrect; additionally, the IO stated he did not interview any witnesses * the police report did not say alcohol was a factor in the accident's cause 3. In this...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 04702-06

    Original file (04702-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 July ‘2007. 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, your record contains a report of medical history dated 2 September 1980 in which you denied having a history of head injury, periods...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016945

    Original file (20140016945.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    If a LOD determination is required, information from the medical records will be used to support a determination that an EPTS condition was or was not aggravated by military service. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. The applicant contends that his records should be corrected to show an LOD finding of In Line of Duty...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 04100060C070208

    Original file (04100060C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel states that another witness, SSG V, was interviewed but that the line of duty investigating officer “only touched on the issue of the gold sedan when he interviewed” SSG V. He notes that in SSG V’s sworn statement he related that he was told by Mr. F at the scene of the accident about the involvement of the “gold sedan” in this motor vehicle accident, and thereby corroborated Mr. F’s statement regarding the fact that the woman in the gold car “was speeding so he [applicant] wouldn’t...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 06840-05

    Original file (06840-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21September 2006. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...