DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX URE
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 Docket No 00335-0909
19 January 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 14 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 ali material submitted in
support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes,
regulations and policies.
BEter careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was
jnsufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.
You enlisted in the Navy on 3 Pebruary 1978. On 20
April 1982, the President, Physical Evaluation Board (PEB)
notified the Chief of Naval Personnel that you had been found
physically fit to perform the duties of your office, grade, rank
or rating on active duty. On 2 May 1982, you acknowledged
receiving a performance evaluation in which your reporting
senior strongly recommended you for advancement to E-6 and
retention in the Navy. You underwent a pre-separation physical
examination on 23 August 1982. Although you disclosed an
extensive history of illness and injury at that time, none of
your conditions were considered disqualifying for further
service or discharge, and you were found to be physically
qualified for release from active duty. You were voluntarily
released from active duty on 21 September 1982 at the expiration
of your active obligated service.
The Board found that you were fully qualified and recommended
for reenlistment at that time, and could have reenlisted had you
wanted to do so. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates
that you were unfit to reasonably perform your duties at the
time of your release from active duty, the Board was unable to
recommend any corrective action in your case. 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 | CY2008 | 07993-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on5 March 2009. The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 2 June 1978. Consequently, when applying fora 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 | 03068-03
on 13 December Following your discharge, the Department of Veterans Affairs denied your request for service connection for a mental disorder, after determining that you did not suffer from a mental disorder that was incurred in or aggravated by your military service. indicate that you were diagnosed or treated for a mental disorder during your enlistment, duty on 12 November 1982, physical examination. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12874-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 September 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02433-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 December 2008. The VA granted you a disability rating of 10% for a hiatal hernia with psychophysiological gastrointestinal disorder, history of peptic ulcer, history of cholecystectomy; and a separate 10% rating for migraine headaches. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00026-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 January 2010. As you have not demonstrated that you were unfit for duty by reason of physical disability on 20 April 2007, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in your case. 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 | CY2001 | 02816-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 December 2001. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that you were entitled to a combined disability rating of 30% or higher at the time of your discharge, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04587-09
BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 March 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. 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 | CY2005 | 06289-05
Documentary material considered by he 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 were released from active duty and transferred to the Temporary Disability...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08177-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 March 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. You then reenlisted for six years on 9 March The record reflects that you were advanced to TM2 (E-5) on 16 January 1980 and served without incident until 6 May 1982 when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failure to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04090-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 February 2010. In this regard, the Board noted that the VA assigned ratings to the lumbosacral strain and radiculopathy without regard to the issue of your fitness to reasonably perform military duty prior to your discharge, and that the rating you received for a mood disorder was based on your condition more than eighteen months after you were discharged from...