Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06889-06
Original file (06889-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370~5 1 00

 JRE
Docket No. 06889-06
25 September 2006



This is in reference to your request for further consideration of application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552. Your original application was denied by the Board on 14 March 2005.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 September 2006. 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 regard, the Board concluded that the new evidence you submitted, which indicates that you were diagnosed as suffering from a mental disorder in 1985, does not demonstrate that you lacked mental responsibility in 1979, when you began the four-year period of unauthorized absence that resulted in your discharge, or that you were unfit for further service by reason of physical disability when you were discharged in absentia in 1984. The Board noted that even if you had been unfit for duty in 1984, you would not have been entitled to disability separation or retirement, because a discharge by reason of misconduct takes precedence over disability processing. In addition, you have not demonstrated that your mental disorder was incurred or aggravated while you were entitled to basic pay.
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

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00309-08

    Original file (00309-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 October 2008. The Board could not find any indication in your naval record that you suffered from a significant mental disorder. 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 | CY2009 | 06638-09

    Original file (06638-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 September 2010. 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 | CY2005 | 05642-05

    Original file (05642-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of you application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, you 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 served on active duty in the Marine Corps from 6 June 1967 to 29 December...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01463-07

    Original file (01463-07.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 reenlisted in the Marine corps on 26 February 1984, with 2 years and 25...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06513-06

    Original file (06513-06.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 in order for a service member to be retired by reason of physical disability,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04551-10

    Original file (04551-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 January 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 | CY2011 | 01803-11

    Original file (01803-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 August 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 | CY2007 | 02228-07

    Original file (02228-07.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. On 18 December 2004, you reenlisted in the Navy Reserve. 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04187-00

    Original file (04187-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 February 2001. On 24 October 1986, the Physical Evaluation Board that you remained unfit for duty, and that your condition was ratable at 10%. 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 | 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...