ete hoe
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 26370-5100 JRE
Docket No. 09198-08
19 November 2009
FeS
ee
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 12 November 2009. 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. In addition, the Board considered the
advisory opinion furnished by Director, Secretary of Navy
Council of Review Boards dated 22 September 2009, a copy of
which is attached, and your response thereto.
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 connection, the Board substantially
concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion.
In addition, the Board concluded that the-available evidence is
insufficient to demonstrate that you should have received
disability ratings from the Department of the Navy for any
conditions other than your heart condition. The Board rejected
your contention to the effect that you were not accorded all of
your rights during the disability evaluation process, as it
found that you accepted the findings of the Physical Evaluation
Board on 14 November 2003, waived your right to a formal
hearing, and requested that you be discharged on 15 January
2004. 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.
Censequently, 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,
— \QuD
W. DEAN PFRI
Executive Lo
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11339-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 November 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 | 13238-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 January 2010. In the absence of credible evidence which establishes that you were unfit to reasonably perform the duties of your rank by reason of physical disability due to any of the additional conditions rated by the VA, the Board was unable to recommend corrective action in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07125-10
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. However, the Board found these factors were insufficient to warrant changing your reentry code due to your diagnosed personality disorder. , consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burdén is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00021-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 March 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Director, Secretary of the Navy Council of Personnel Boards dated 23 November 2009 and your response thereto. Among the records in that Folder are two civilian health record entries of note which you did not submit in support of your application.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00602-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 November 2009. The MEB established final diagnoses of metatarsalgia and gastroc equinus and recommended that your case be reviewed by the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). The Board concluded that your receipt of disability ratings from the VA for eight conditions that were not rated by the PEB is not considered probative of the existence of error or...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06128-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 March 2011. 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 Board concluded that your nonrecommendation for retention, ineligibility for reenlistment due to the diagnosed physical or mental condition,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08012-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 April 2011. However, the Board found these factors were insufficient to warrant changing your narrative reason for separation or reentry code due to your diagnosed adjustment disorder. The Board thus concluded that there is no error or injustice in your reason for separation or RE-4 reentry code.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06051-08
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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01826-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 February 2009. In this regard, the Board was not persuaded that you were unfit for duty by reason of physical disability due to a hearing loss or decreased visual acuity at the time of your voluntary discharge from the Navy. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04787-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 February 2011. As there is no indication in the available records that you were unfit for duty on 30 July 2009 due to the effects of any of the additional conditions rated by the VA, the Board was tunable to recommend favorable action in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...