Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02304-09
Original file (02304-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
JRE

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
Docket No. 02304-09
19 May 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 14 May 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 Marine Corps on 23
March 1992. You were released from active duty on 31 July 1994,
and transferred to the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL)
because of a low grade carcinoma of the soft palate. As you
failed to report for a final periodic physical examination, the
President, Physical Evaluation Board, removed your name from the
TDRL and directed that you be discharged without entitlement to
disability benefits administered by the Department of the Navy.
The Board could not find any indication in the available records
that you failed to undergo a final periodic physical examination

through no fault of your own or due to circumstances beyond your
control, and it was not persuaded that it would be in the

interest of justice to excuse your failure to undergo that
examination. 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,

RLS

ROBERT D. SALMAN
Acting Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06657-08

    Original file (06657-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 June 2009. The Board also noted that on 17 June 2003 the VA was notified that you had been discharged from the naval service without entitlement to disability severance pay. The Board concluded that the presence of your address in documents the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provided to the Marine Corps did not relieve you of the responsibility of ensuring...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08848-02

    Original file (08848-02.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 February 2003. a 30% disability rating for labyrinthitis. 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 | 00428-08

    Original file (00428-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL. 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 material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10963-07

    Original file (10963-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, Sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 September 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 probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06066-09

    Original file (06066-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 found that you served on active duty in the Navy from 24 February 1999 to 14 March 2006 when you were released from active duty and transferred to the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) due to migraine headaches. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00032-08

    Original file (00032-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 November 2008. The Board noted that you would not be entitled to retired pay even if your name were to be restored to the TDRL, as your statutory entitlement to that pay ended on the fifth anniversary of your transfer to the TDRL. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00072-01

    Original file (00072-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 February 2001. 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 applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05771-08

    Original file (05771-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You contend that you are statutorily entitled to a disability rating of 50% A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 July 2009. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06753-08

    Original file (06753-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 March 2009. As your condition was rated at 10% disabling as of 10 June 2008, you were not entitled to remain on the TDRL. 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 | 02676-08

    Original file (02676-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 June 2009. In addition, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) that considered your case on 18 August 2005 found you fit for duty. 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.