DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No. 12318-08
4 February 2010
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 28 January 2010. 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 alli 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.
You reenlisted in the Marine Corps.on 12 June 1987 in the rank.
of sergeant. You received nonjudicial punishment on 6 February
1989 and 6 November 1990 for multiple unauthorized absence
offenses. On 18 January 1991, you were discharged under |
honorable conditions by reason of unsatisfactory performance due
to your failure to conform to applicable weight standards. On 17
July 2003, the Department of Veterans Affairs awarded you a
disability rating of 20% for lumbosacral strain.
The Board did not accept your contention to the effect that you
could not meet applicable weight standards because of the
effects of a lower back condition. It noted that you were
borderline overweight throughout most your career in the Marine
Corps and had, in fact, been recommended for discharge in by an
administrative discharge board that convened during your first
enlistment in 1981. It appears that.your first reenlistment may
have been fraudulent in that you did not disclose that you had
not been permitted to reenlist at the expiration of your first
enlistment, and were assigned a restricted reenlistment code.
There is no credible evidence that your overweight condition was
caused by or in any way related to your lower back condition. In
addition, the Board concluded that in view of the acts of
misconduct you committed following your promotion to sergeant,
you were not entitled to a fully honorable characterization of
service. 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,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03167-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 September 2002. reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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. time from 22 December 2000 until 19 January 2001. for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06453-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 February 2003. The fact that the VA has awarded you substantial disability ratings is not probative of the existence of error in your Navy record, because the VA assigns disability ratings without regard to the issue of fitness for duty. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10439-07
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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions from Headquarters Marine Corps dated 21 April 2008, a copy of which is attached, and your letter dated 24 May 2008.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 12170-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 March 2009. You were discharged from the Marine Corps on 10 May 1978. 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 | CY2006 | 01736-06
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 12 June 2007, and the advisory opinion from the HQMC Manpower Information Operations, Manpower Management Information Systems Division (MIO), dated 30 January 2007, copies of which are attached. The responsibility to implement this policy rests with the commander ~ not meet the prescribed weight standards, the commander~- must take specific actions prior to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04108-01
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. aim that "By doctor's orders Subj: SE OF GUNNERY SMC SERGEAN d. Gunnery Sergeant was required to be notified by MC0 6100.10. her commander that she has been assigned to the weight control program per Documented evidence enclosed in her application, the CO, Headquarters and Service Battalion letter 6100/l B 07-03 dated...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08355-01
In this regard, the E3oard noted that the VA assigns disability ratings without regard to the issue of fitness for military duty, whereas the military departments rate only those conditions which render a service member unfit for duty. The Board concluded that had the PEB had found your arthritis to be unfitting as of 1 October 1994, it is unlikely that you would have received a substantial rating for that condition, because substantial deductions would have been taken from the rating for...
USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500696
Dr. S_ reviewed my military records concerning the weight problem and my post-Iraq questionnaire and his opinion is that I have been in denial of my psychiatric problems, admittedly some of which pre-exist my military duty and all of the ADD associated problems, but that my other problems relate to Iraq-related PTSD. 031031: Body Composition Program (BCP) Evaluation: Commanding Officer, Marine Wing Support Squadron 271 assigned Applicant to a 6-month BCP as a second assignment. The...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10001-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 June 2010. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11234-06
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.You reenlisted in the Navy on 5 February 1982 for six years. However, the next two evaluations...