Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02961-08
Original file (02961-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

JRE
Docket No. 02961-08

7 August 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 7 August 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 Reserve Delayed
Entry Program on 28 December 1976. You entered on extended
active duty on 28 June 1977, and were honorably discharged on 2
December 1981. You reenlisted in the Navy the following day and
completed a Report of Medical History on that date in which you

denied having a history of head injury and periods of
unconsciousness. You received nonjudicial punishment on 22

February 1985 for wrongful use of marijuana. The punishment

included the forfeiture of $490.00 pay, and reduction to pay
grade E-4. You completed a Report of Medical History on 4
November 1985, in which you denied having a history of head
injury and periods of unconsciousness. You underwent a pre-
separation physical examination on that date, and were found
qualified for duty at sea and on foreign shores, as well as for
release from active duty. The examining physician did not note
any significant defects, other than a fungal infection, and you
did not disclose any conditions you felt warranted further
evaluation or treatment. You were convicted by summary court-
martial on 26 February 1986 of wrongful use of marijuana, and
sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 30 days, and
reduction to pay grade E-2. On 17 March 1986, after being
advised of your rights in connection with your proposed
discharge by reason of misconduct-drug abuse, you waived all
rights except the right to obtain copies of documents forwarded
to the discharge authority. On 27 March 1986, you completed a
Report of Medical History in which you disclosed that you had
sustained a head injury of unspecified severity, but once again
denied having a history of periods of unconsciousness. You were
discharged by reason of misconduct/drug abuse on 31 March 1986,
with a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) denied your request for
upgrade of your discharge on or about 2 October 1986. The NDRB
found, among other things, that while “there is evidence of the
applicant having gastrointestinal problems while in the Navy,
the Board fails to see how these problems could cause or justify

the applicant’s use of illegal drugs”.

The Board could find no credible evidence in you application or
the available records which establishes that you sustained a
significant head injury which caused you to lack mental
responsibility for your actions. In addition, it could not find
any credible evidence that you did not wrongfully use marijuana
on at least two separate occasions, or that you were unfit for
duty by reason of physical disability. It noted that you would
not have been eligible for disability separation or retirement
even if you had been unfit for duty, as your discharge by reason
of misconduct would have taken precedence over 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,

Weag

W. DEAN PF F
Executive Di r

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07559-08

    Original file (07559-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 September 2008. In a letter dated 29 November 1999, a psychiatrist with a Louisiana State University student health center stated that you had an organic mental disorder with depression and a personality disorder, both secondary to a severe head injury you suffered as a teenager. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08797-09

    Original file (08797-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 June 2010. Your receipt of a combined disability rating of 10% from the VA shortly after you were released from active duty is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record because those ratings were assigned without regard to the issue of your fitness for military duty on 25 June 1985. Consequently, when applying for a correction of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08086-09

    Original file (08086-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    - R three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 June 2010. The statements of your former commanding officer and a former member of your platoon were carefully considered, but found insufficient to establish that you were knocked unconscious and sustained damage to your ears and hearing as @ result of a mortar blast, as neither was an eyewitness to your alleged wounding. Consequently, when applying for a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09560-06

    Original file (09560-06.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 the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.On 2 October 1984 you enlisted in the Navy at age 20. You subsequently attended a substance abuse...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08205-09

    Original file (08205-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 December 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07721-09

    Original file (07721-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You had no military status during the period from 26 June 1979 to 19 December 1988. , The Board considered your application and all pertinent records in accordance with the provisions of SECNAV Instruction 5420.193, enclosure (1), Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (codified at 32 CFR 723), paragraph 3e. During the 1979-1989 period, you received treatment from VA health care providers for multiple conditions such as hip, back and knee pain, chronic recurrent foot pain,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10029-06

    Original file (10029-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 April 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 | CY2006 | 04702-06

    Original file (04702-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 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. In addition, your record contains a report of medical history dated 2 September 1980 in which you denied having a history of head injury, periods...

  • CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2012-083

    Original file (2012-083.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PSC noted that the records show that the applicant repeatedly admitted that he had incurred his learning disability, which was what caused him to be unfit for duty, in a motorcycle accident in 1975; that the applicant stated in his rebuttal to the medical board report that his condition had improved while on active duty; and that the FPEB found, based on ample evidence, that there had been no increase in or aggravation of the applicant’s learning disability since his enlistment. He asked...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10625-06

    Original file (10625-06.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 the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.On 6 September 1984 you enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 19. On 9 July 1985 you were counseled...