DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 TRG
Docket No: 7623-06
28 January 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 23 January 2008. 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.
You enlisted in the Navy for four years on 2 September 1987 at
age 18. During the period from 20 January 1989 to 15 August
1991, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on two occasions.
Your offenses were misappropriation of a watch and an absence
from your appointed place of duty for six and one half hours.
During the first NUP, you were reduced in rate from seaman
apprentice (SA; E-2) to seaman recruit (SR; E-1). At the second
NJP, you were reduced from petty officer third class (BM3; E-4)
to seaman (BMSN; E-3). During the rest of your enlistment you
served in a satisfactory manner. Later in August 1991, you
completed a medical history form stating that you were in good
health and not taking any medications. A subsequent medical
examination found you physically qualified for separation. You
were released from active duty on 30 August 1991. Subsequently,
you were issued an honorable discharge certificate at the end of
your military obligation.
With your application, you have submitted documentation showing
that on 19 June 2006, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA)
has rated you 100% disabled because of service connected paranoid
schizophrenia.
You are requesting that you be reinstated to petty officer third
class essentially because you were in the beginning phase of your
paranoid schizophrenia at that time and were unable to perform
your duties which led to the absence from your appointed place of
duty.
Regulations allow for NUP evidence to be destroyed after a period
of two years. Therefore, the facts and circumstances which led
to the NUP are unknown. The Board noted that there was no
evidence of your schizophrenia during your separation physical.
Although the DVA has diagnosed you with paranoid schizophrenia in
2006, there is nothing to connect that diagnosis to your
condition 15 years earlier while you were in the Navy. The Board
concluded that a correction to your record to show that you were
not reduced in rate is not warranted.
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 PFEIFF
Executive Dire
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 09115-05
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 February 2007. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge, given your alcohol abuse and two disciplinary actions. 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 | CY2002 | 03925-00
3925-00 12 February 2002 From: To: Chairman, Secretary Board for Correction of Naval Records of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C.1552 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments (2) Case Summary (3) Subject's Naval Record Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, 1. a former enlisted member of the Navy, applied to this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected by upgrading the other than honorable discharge issued on 5 November 1990. The DVA noted...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01431
Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Medical Consultant recommended denial noting the applicant was administratively discharged in 1963 for unsuitability due to passive- aggressive personality disorder (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - I (DSM-I). The DVA has granted service-connected disability compensation based on that psychiatrist's...
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301233
Relief granted.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall change to.The Applicant is not eligible for further reviews by the NDRB. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03938-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 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, 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...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01074
She was given several “rule out” diagnoses (delusional disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and paranoid personality disorder/traits) at the start of her treatment.The CI was followed by an outpatient psychiatrist whodocumented “hx of paranoid personality”on a progress note dated 07 May 2002.The CI was hospitalized following this visit which recommended that the CI be evaluated by a psychologist and considered for “repeat MEB.”(It was noted that the provider’s progress notes that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05457-06
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.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 Navy on 7 November 1983 after three years of prior...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02742
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2003-02742 INDEX CODE 108.01 108.10 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be given a medical discharge/retirement for service-connected pain in his back, shoulder, and neck, and numbness in his right hand. The DVA concluded the evidence did not show his right ear perforation continued to cause...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1985-02290A
The combined compensable rating for these conditions was 40%. The compensable rating for schizophrenia was reduced to 70%, for a total combined compensable rating of 80%. ___________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on June 22, 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair Mr. Timothy A. Beyland, Member Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Member The following...
The combined compensable rating for these conditions was 40%. The compensable rating for schizophrenia was reduced to 70%, for a total combined compensable rating of 80%. ___________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on June 22, 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair Mr. Timothy A. Beyland, Member Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Member The following...