DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 .
JRE
Docket No. 12114-08
29 June 2009
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 25 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 did not accept your contention to the effect that a
line of duty investigation (LODI) was not conducted in your
case. It noted that an LODI was completed on 26 January 1998,
and that in the opinion of the investigating officer, your
injuries were incurred as the result of your own misconduct and
not in the line of duty. You were informed of the findings,
opinions and recommendation of the investigating officer on 20
February 1998. The report of investigation was approved by the
appointing authority on 9 March 1998; however, on 24 March 1998,
the Chief of Naval Education and Training (CNET), returned the
ROL to the appointing authority for compliance with section 0221
of the Manual of the Judge Advocate General (JAG MANUAL) then in
effect. After being accorded those rights on 11 May 1998, you
declined to make a statement in your behalf. On 28 May 1998,
CNET concurred with the opinion of the investigating officer
that your injuries were incurred not in the line of duty and due
to your own misconduct.
On 7 July 1998, the Record Review Panel of the Physical
Evaluation Board ) (PEB) found you unfit for duty by reason of
physical disability that was incurred as a result of your own
intentional misconduct or willful neglect. You accepted the
findings of the PEB on 14 October 1998, and you were discharged
without entitlement to disability benefits on 27 November 1998.
On 20 March 2000, the Department of Veterans Affairs denied your
request for service connection for your disabilities after
determining that they were not incurred in the line of duty.
In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that your
disabilities were incurred in the line of duty, 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,
lL :
W. DEAN PFET RE
Executive D Or
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07108-00
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 this connection it substantially concurred with the The Board was not persuaded that the line of duty(LOD)/misconduct determination made in your case is erroneous or unjust. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068749C070402
The LODI investigating officer found the applicant's injuries did not occur in the line of duty and were due to his own misconduct. PERSCOM further advised that the applicant's LODI had numerous legal reviews; however, due to changes in statements and questions regarding the application of Rule 7, Army Regulation 600-8-1, another legal review of the investigation was conducted. It was only after the gang members began winning and the soldiers retreated that deadly force was used by the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040004671C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, that his Line of Duty Investigation (LODI), dated 23 January 1964, be corrected by changing the findings from "Not in the Line of Duty " to "In the Line of Duty." After recovering sufficiently from his injuries, he was given a medical evaluation board (MEB) which found him medically unfit for continued service and found his injuries occurred in the line of duty; the line of duty determination was erroneously based on the LODI from the applicant's 5 June...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100018318
Paragraph 39-5 (Standards Applicable to LOD Determinations) of Army Regulation 600-8-1 provided that "injury or disease proximately caused by the member's intentional misconduct or willful negligence is "not in LOD - due to own misconduct." Appendix B (Rules Governing LOD and Misconduct Determinations) of Army Regulation 600-8-1 stated that "in every formal investigation, the purpose is to find out whether there is evidence of intentional misconduct or willful negligence that is substantial...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050013874C070206
The applicant also states that "[a] VA administrative decision determined the accident was not the result of "willful misconduct" and granted the accident "in line of duty". Paragraph 39-5 (Standards applicable to LOD determinations) of the LODI regulation provides, in pertinent part, "[i]njury or disease proximately caused by the member's intentional misconduct or willful negligence is "Not in L[O]D - due to own misconduct"." In fact, the evidence of record shows that the VA did not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078119C070215
APPLICANT STATES : In essence, that he was not in an AWOL (absent without leave) status at the time of his accident on 24 February 1989; that his records only show him as AWOL from 13 July 1989 to 5 November 1989; that the period 24-27 February 1989 was a three day weekend; that he attended school Monday through Friday from 11:00-13:30 hours and that this was the end of his duty day. On 24 May 1989, the applicant's commander provided the investigating officer a sworn statement in which he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001053136C070420
The applicant requests: That the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) direct the 78th Division to hold both his medical records and his “201 file”[personnel records] until the MEB [Medical Evaluation Board] matter can be resolved; that his separation orders be amended to reinstate him in his former unit in a “medical hold status” to allow the MEB process to continue until it is concluded; that he be allowed to make up any drills he has missed since his discharge so he does...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100011774
The cause of the accident had not been determined and substantial evidence did not exist to demonstrate that either intentional misconduct or willful negligence was the proximate cause of the accident. On 17 April 1985, he appealed the determination and entered the following arguments: * He was traveling between 25-30 miles per hour because he knew there was a stop sign ahead * He swerved to the right to avoid hitting a deer * There was no evidence in the police report of excessive speed,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067422C070402
He reported that he heard three or four more shots. In a 30 July 2001 sworn statement the applicant's brother related that he "saw the shooter point a shotgun directly at my brother and fire several shots. She saw a gun, she saw the shooting, but she did not see the applicant with a gun.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080015597
The DVA, which has neither the authority, nor the responsibility for determining physical fitness for military service, awards disability ratings to veterans for conditions that it determines were incurred during military service and subsequently affect the individuals civilian employability. The governing regulation shows the Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting that were incurred or aggravated during the period of service. The evidence of record shows that...