DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No. 02414-08
12 December 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 4 December 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 enlisted in the Navy on 13 September
1988. You received nonjudicial punishment on three occasions
between 8 June and 23 July 1991, for violating a lawful order,
driving while under the influence (DUI) of alcohol, and absence
from your appointed place of duty. You underwent a pre-
Separation physical examination of 30 October 1991, and were
found not physically qualified for separation because of
abnormal laboratory test results. You were reexamined on 19
December 1991, and found fit for duty. You were discharged by
reason of misconduct:/commission of a serious offense on 30
December 1991, with a discharge under other than honorable
conditions, based on a second DUI offense.
The Board was not persuaded that you were unfit for duty by
reason of physical disability on 30 December 1991. As indicated
above, you were found fit for duty 19 December 1991, and you
have not submitted any evidence which contravenes that finding.
In addition, the Board noted that you would not have been
entitled to disability separation or retirement even if you had
been unfit for duty, because your discharge by reason of
misconduct would have taken precedence over disability
evaluation processing. The Board concluded that in light of your
extensive disciplinary record, your service was properly
characterized as under other than honorable conditions, and that
you have not demonstrated that it would be in the interest of
justice for the Board to upgrade your discharge. 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,
~
cer
t
W. DEAN PFETIRE
Executive Di
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01227-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 November 2008. In addition, the VA rated three conditions at 0%, and determined that fifteen other conditions for which you requested ratings were not incurred in or aggravated by your naval service. The military departments, unlike the VA, are permitted to assign disability ratings only in those cases where a service member has been found unfit to reasonably...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10460-07
You then served in the Navy Reserve until 14 September 1991, when you were honorably discharged from the service and not recommended for reenlistment pursuant to the approved findings of an administrative discharge board (ADB). You completed reports of medical history on those dates in which you falsely denied that you had ever been discharged from military service. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00290-10
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 | CY2008 | 01802-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 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 | CY2008 | 01304-08
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. The VA denied your request for service connection for nine other conditions. 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 | CY2008 | 00378-08
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 VA did not determine that you were insane when you committed the offenses which resulted in your discharge. 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 | 11350-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 September 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 | 09891-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 August 2008. Your receipt of substantial disability ratings from the VA is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record, because the VA awarded those ratings without regard to the issue of your fitness for military duty on the date of your discharge from the Navy. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02433-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 December 2008. The VA granted you a disability rating of 10% for a hiatal hernia with psychophysiological gastrointestinal disorder, history of peptic ulcer, history of cholecystectomy; and a separate 10% rating for migraine headaches. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05308-06
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 JRE Docket No. 05308-06 16 July 2007 Dear