DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DG 20370-5100 ,
HD:hd
Docket No. 12204-08
13 August 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.
You requested, in effect, reconsideration of your previous
request, docket number 2656-80, denied on 16 July 1980, to
remove the fitness reports from the Naval Regional Medical
Center (NAVREGMEDCEN), Charleston, South Carolina for 1 April
1977 to 28 February 1978, 1 March to 15 August 1978, 16 August
1978 to 28 February 1979 and 1 March to 15 June 1979 and effect
your retroactive promotion to captain effective from the date
you were first eligible (and by implication, remove any failure
o£ selection to captain). You also made new requests to remove
all entries in fitness reports, an admiral's reprimand, or any
other document or file that references you, while assigned to
the U. §. Naval Hospital (USNH) Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico, in
a derogatory manner; grant you all military awards and medals.
you earned but never received; and send to the Veterans
Administration (VA) appropriate qualification details gathered
from your "Concealed, Classified, U. S. Navy and U. S. Army
Security Related Files."
Your fitness reports from the NAVREGMEDCEN, Charleston were not
reconsidered, as you have provided no new and material evidence
or other matter concerning these reports that was not previously
considered. Your having been diagnosed in January 2008 with
stage IIIA cancer, while certainly most regrettable, does not
establish you were correct in alleging malfeasance by your chief
of service in the radiology department, a charge that, according
to the contested fitness report for 1 March to 15 August 1978,
was investigated and found to be unsubstantiated; nor does it
establish you were the victim of reprisal for having been a
"whistleblower."
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 13 August 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 opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated
i and 12 May and 16 June 2009, copies of which are attached.
The Board also considered your letter dated 24 July 2009. with
attachments.
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.
Your record reflects no admiral's reprimand from USNH, Roosevelt:
Roads. Your fitness report record shows three reports from that
command; two, for 16 June 1979 to 29 February 1980 and 1 March
to 14 November 1980, from Captain G---, whose "Judgments and
Decisions [you say] Were Entirely In [your] Favor on all
issues," and a "not observed" report for 15 November to 31
December 1980 (no report from 1 January to 21 March 1981, the
date of your discharge}.
The Board was unable to find you were denied any military award
or medal you had earned. Since.the Board found no defect in
your performance record, it still had no grounds to effect your
retroactive promotion to captain or remove any failure of
selection to that grade. Finally, the Board was unable to.
identify any "Concealed, Classified, U. S. Navy and U. S. Army
Security Related files" containing VA qualification details that
pertain to you. ,
In view of the above, 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,
Foxy DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
Enclosures
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03599-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 January 2003. The medical record also discloses the petitioner was admitted to Naval Hospital, Long Beach, on 28 December 1979 and discharged on 11 February 1980 with the diagnosis: “Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder”. The petitioner appeared before a Medical Board on 13 February 1980 with the above diagnosis and that Board found no evidence of psychosis...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06028-00
As reflected in enclosure record as he requested, but modified it by removing the following RS verbiage: qualified for promotion at this time but.. mark in item 19 from “NA” to “yes.” .” Also, as shown in enclosure (2), the HQMC PERB did not remove this report from Petitioner ’s “He is not (3), they changed the g* The fifth contested fitness report, for 28 June to 20 July 1985 (Tab E), from a third RS, also documents only that the following be deleted from the RS comments: Petitioner Is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06614-08
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. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05544-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, slbhting in executive session, considered your application on 23 January 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06860-00
show that you were on the weight control program during the period 1 August 1976 through 31 July 1977. for the period ending 31 July states as follows: The next two fitness reports The fitness report (He) was placed on weight/personal appearance at-a starting weight of 210 pounds with a goal of to be achieved by 771027. years, 7 months and 21 days of active service. He continued to gain weight through While undergoing the physical This On 31 August 1980 the discharge directed on 20 April...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10573-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 August 2009. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and the passage of time. 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 | 06128-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 March 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 | CY2008 | 06728-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 March 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. On 12 September 1978, you were given a retention warning and informed that further misconduct may not only result in disciplinary action, but an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03794-01
comments concerning request mast, the CO stated that when he personally heard your request mast, concerning the charges or your dissatisfaction with the noncommissioned officer-in-charge or recruiting duty. you still had a strong Administrative 2 On 18 March 1980 the division psychiatrist reported to the Headquarters Company CO that you had been terminated from the psychiatry day care program on 11 March 1980 so that your performance and behavior could be observed in an infantry...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1647 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 September 2014. 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...