DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No. 05707-07
18 April 2008
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 April 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.
The Board found that you served on active duty in the Navy from
28 October 1966 to 14 May 1971, when you were discharged by
reason of unfitness-frequent incidents of a discreditable nature
with military authorities, which included four instances of
nonjudicial punishment, a conviction by special court-martial,
and eight periods of time lost. Although you had been ..
recommended for separation with an undesirable discharge, the
Chief of Naval Personnel directed that you be issued a general
discharge because of a defect he noted in the separation
package. On 23 February 1972, the Veterans Administration (VA)
awarded you service connection and a disability rating of 30%
for a fungal infection of your feet, and 20% for a duodenal
deformity secondary to scarring from “previous ulcer disease”.
The Board concluded that your receipt of substantial disability
ratings from the VA does not demonstrate that your discharge
from the Navy is erroneous or unjust. The VA assigns disability
ratings without regard to the issue of the veteran’s fitness for
=" =F tery service at the” time of separation. The mititary =>
departments may assign disability ratings only in those cases
where the service member has been found unfit for duty. There
is no indication in your record that you were unfit for duty by
reason of physical disability at the time of your discharge. In
addition, even if you had been unfit for duty, you would not
have been entitled to disability separation or retirement
because the proposed administrative discharge for frequent
involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities
would have precluded disability evaluation processing.
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 PFE
Executive D
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02241-09
A, ; A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your | application on 1 October 2009. You were discharged under other than honorable conditions on 24 January 1985, by reason of your frequent. ‘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 | CY2001 | 08662-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 October 2001. 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 | 09835-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 October 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00144-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 January 2008. On 20 December 1973 you received a fifth nonjudicial punishment, for absence from appointed place of duty. 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 | CY2007 | 06749-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 June 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4905 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 April 2014. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found 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 material...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 12499 11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 October 2012. 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 | CY2012 | 03288-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 February 2013. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09388-07
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. Subsequently, 2 September 1975, an ADB recommended discharge under honorable conditions by reason of unfitness due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01823-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 October 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. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged that separation could result in a UD and elected to have your case heard by an administrative...