DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TAL
Docket No: 02768-09
8 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 16 December 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.
You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on
82...,0On. 20.July 1982, you were the subject of a medical
uation that diagnosed you with Myotonic Dystrophy, a
condition that existed prior to entry into the service. The
Medical Board stated in part, that you did not meet the minimum
standards for enlistment or induction and you did not meet them
at the time of your entry on active duty. You were notified of
the Medical Board recommendation that you be discharged by reason
of enlistment error, failure to meet enlistment physical
standards. On 23 July 1982, your commanding officer directed
your separation under honorable conditions due to enlistment
error. You were so discharged on 9 February 1984. —
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
ail potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, and
-overall record of service. Nevertheless, the Board found that
these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change in your
narrative reason for separation given your diagnosis of Myotonic
Dystrophy and the fact that you were. found unable to meet
' enlistment physical standards. 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,
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021747
Particularly in light of the combined 60-percent VA rating for a service-connected disability, it is reasonable to state an MEB and a physical evaluation board (PEB) would have reached an equivalent conclusion in terms of medical retirement based on the nexus between the medical conditions and direct military service. A medical proceeding, regardless of the date completed, must establish that a medical condition was identified by appropriate medical authority within 6 months of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130001993
His records contain documentation which shows he requested a 6-month extension in February 2005 because he was pending an MMRB to determine his eligibility to continue his military service. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence on which to base granting his request for a medical discharge under Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61. _______ _ X _______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086542C070212
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: An UOTHC discharge was normally considered appropriate for members separated under this provision of the regulation. The record also shows that the applicant’s discharge processing was conducted in accordance with the applicable regulation in effect at the time.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00018-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 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. Consequent fy,” when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4460 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your ‘application on 19 April 2014. 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,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 13210-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 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 | CY2010 | 08372-10
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 20 August 2007, you were the subject of a medical evaluation that diagnosed you with asthma, a condition that existed prior to enlistment and is not correctable to meet Navy physical Standards. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11312-06
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 the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.You enlisted in the Navy on 1 October 2003 at age 18 and served without disciplinary incident.During...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08827-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 July 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 | CY2009 | 13078-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 August 2010. On 4 October 2006, your commanding officer directed an entry level separation and at that time you were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code. 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.