Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08949-06
Original file (08949-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
        
         JRE
Docket No. 08949-06
29 October 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 7 June 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. In this regard, the Board could not fined any indication in your record that you were wounded during your period of service in the Navy. In addition, the Board noted that you underwent a pre—separation physical examination on 12 December 1945, and the report of that examination shows that your extremities were examined and found to be normal, and that you did not have a history of injuries.

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.

If you believe you are entitled to be issued awards or decorations in addition to those sent you on 7 October 2003, you should you should contact write the Navy Personnel Command Retired Records Section, 9700 Page Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63132—5000.




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 | CY2010 | 00290-10

    Original file (00290-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 October 2010. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that you were not physically qualified for release from active duty on 2 October 2008, or that you were unfit for duty by reason of physical disability on 27 May 2009, when you were discharged by reason of physical fitness assessment failure, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 04095-06

    Original file (04095-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 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. 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 | 11951-09

    Original file (11951-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on.14 January 2010. The Board concluded that your receipt of a VA disability rating for migraine headaches is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your Navy record. 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 | 03122-09

    Original file (03122-09.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 October 2009. The fact that the VA awarded you a disability rating for your condition more than thirty years after you were discharged is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record because that rating reflects the severity of your condition in 2007 rather than in 1976, when it was Largely asymptomatic. Consequently, when applying...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07423-06

    Original file (07423-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested that your record be corrected to show, in effect, that you were retired by reason of physical disability on 9 October 2005, rather than released from active duty on that date.A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 August 2007. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10646-07

    Original file (10646-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 October 2008. The VA denied your request for service connection for nine other conditions, to include the personality disorder, which the VA classifies as a developmental disorder rather than a disability. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00266-08

    Original file (00266-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 June 2008. Regarding the report for 16 March to 24 October 2007, the Board Gid not find the "Promotable" (third best) promotion recommendation conflicting with the remainder the report, nor could the Board find the reporting senior’s second recommendation for your conversion to career counselor invalidated the report. Consequently, when applying for a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09542-06

    Original file (09542-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your request to restore your security clearance was not considered, as the Board for Correction of Naval Records does not consider this a matter within its purview. In accordance with our standard policy, this letter was sent to the member via his command. We must advise the Board to deny any request for amendment of his record in regard to his current clearance eligibility.

  • 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 | CY2006 | 05645-06

    Original file (05645-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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...