DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
JRE
WASHINGTON DO 20370-5100 .
Docket No. 11594-08
15 June 2009
feeb tig:
ice
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 11 June 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.
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 on 23
February 1963, and served on extended active duty from 4 July
1964 to 21 July 1966. You enlisted in the Regular Navy 10 April
1967. You were hospitalized on 5 June 1968 and given a diagnosis
of situational reaction that was thought to be related to your
experiences aboard the USS Forrestal on 29 July 1967 when a
major fire occurred and caused hundreds of deaths and non-fatal
casualties. You were returned to full duty on 12 June 1968 and
considered fit for duty in any billet not aboard the Forrestal.
You underwent a pre-separation physical examination on 2 April
3969 and were found £it for separation. The report of that
examination does not indicate that you were suffering from
symptoms of an anxiety disorder on that date. You were released
from active duty on 11 April 1969 at the expiration of your term
of service. On 19 February 1976, the Veterans Administration
(VA) awarded you a disability rating of 10% for residuals of a
meniscectomy, right knee. The available records from the VA do
not indicate that you submitted for a claim for any conditions
incurred as a result of the fire on the USS Forrestal.
The Board was not persuaded that you were unfit to reasonably
perform the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating by
reason of physical disability on 11 April 1969. The fact that
the VA granted you a disability rating in 1976 is not probative
of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record
because that rating was assigned without regard to the issue of
your fitness for military duty on 11 April 1969. Accordingly,
the Board denied your application. 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,
TR ded
era__W. DEAN ho
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01180-07
Specifically, the panel of the Board that considered your case was not persuaded you were issued the silencing order described in your application, that you suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder while serving on active duty in the Navy, or that you were unfit to reasonably perform the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating by reason of physical disability prior to your separation from the Navy. Two other survivors of the Liberty attack have applied for correction of their naval...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07430-00
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 8 January 2001, a copy of which is attached. In January of 1989, the member was an for advancement to A W3 .The member ’s page-9, contained in enclosure occurred in April of 1989 and in March of 1990 the member still attached to VS-41. It was this physical which found the member, “physically qualified but not aeronautically adaptable for duty involving flying as Air Crew.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05692-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navai Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 June 2009. As noted above, you accepted the initial findings of the PEB, waived your right to a hearing, and acknowledged that you would be separated or retired by reason of physical 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 error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 03838-03
1552 Encl: (1) Case Summary (2) Subject's naval record Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a 1. former enlisted member of the Navy, applied to this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected to show a more favorable reenlistment code. rd, consisting of Mr. , reviewed Petitioner's a Mr. error and injustice on 28 October 2003, and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05157-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 August 2000. 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. You were wounded in action on 26 December 1968, and awarded the Purple Heart on 5 January 1969.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00714-07
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.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 8 July 1965, you reenlisted in the Navy at age 21 after a prior period of honorable service. On 24...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03530-01
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. approved and you were transferred to the PDRL with a 50 percent disability rating on 16 September 1969. 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 | CY1998 | NC9806956
The citation accompanying this award reads, in part, as follows: For meritorious service while serving as Weapons Officer in (CRAIG) while operating in combat missions supporting the Republic of Vietnam from 10 April to 10 August 1965... CRAIG was assigned duties as commander of the Vietnam Naval Gunfire Support Unit from its inception until the ship’s departure from the area. At this time, the Navy and Marine Corps Awards Manual, SECNAV Instruction (SECNAVINST) P1650.1C, authorized the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03697-08
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. Your request for discharge was granted and on 25 March 1976, you received an other than honorable discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04976-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 December 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The punishment imposed was 15 days of extra (NJP) for failure to go to your appointed On 30 July 1969 you received NJP for a 15 day period of unauthorized absence from 23 June to 8 July 1969. The punishment imposed was...