Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07971-06
Original file (07971-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No. 07971-06
12 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 11 January 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 served on active duty in the Marine Corps from 11 May 1982 to 13 April 1984 when you were discharged for the convenience of the government because you suffered from pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB), also known as “shaving bumps”, which interfered with your performance of duty as a Marine. You were not entitled to be separated or retired by reason of physical disability, because PFB is not considered to be a disability under the laws administered by the Department of the Navy. Accordingly, and as there is no basis for granting your request for a “medical” discharge, 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,
         ROBERT D.        ZSA LMAN
          Acting Executive Director























2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10611-09

    Original file (10611-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 July 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 | CY2010 | 02076-10

    Original file (02076-10.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 the absence of evidence which demonstrates that you were entitled to a rating of 30% or higher from the Department of the Navy at the time of your discharge by reason of physical disability, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in your case. Consequently, when gepplying...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10607-06

    Original file (10607-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 January 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. 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 | CY2009 | 03985-09

    Original file (03985-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 April 2009. It 1S immaterial whether or not the disqualifying defect was caused by RP or some other undiagnosed condition, such as optic neuropalhy or congenital nignt blindness as suggested by the retinal specialists you consulted after you were discharged from the Navy. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07751-07

    Original file (07751-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You were sentenced to be discharged from the Marine Corps with a bad conduct discharge. You were separated from the Marine Corps with a bad conduct discharge on 24 February 1971, upon completion of appellate review. 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 | 00645-06

    Original file (00645-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 March 2007. In addition, it found that even if you had been found unfit for duty by reason of physical disability, you would not have been entitled to disability retirement, which requires a disability rating of 30%, or to disability severance pay, which requires a minimum of six months of active duty service. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07156-06

    Original file (07156-06.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 Marine Corps on 1 March 1989. It noted that you would not...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 09363-05

    Original file (09363-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction, of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 January 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. 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 | CY2008 | 06657-08

    Original file (06657-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 June 2009. The Board also noted that on 17 June 2003 the VA was notified that you had been discharged from the naval service without entitlement to disability severance pay. The Board concluded that the presence of your address in documents the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provided to the Marine Corps did not relieve you of the responsibility of ensuring...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06051-08

    Original file (06051-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 July 2009. 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 material error or injustice.