DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No. 03315-09
7 June 2010
u
This is in reference to your applica
record pursuant to the provisions 0
Code, section 1552.
tion for correction of your naval
f title 10 of the United States
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 May
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
all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and
applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record,
a majority of the panel found that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error
or injustice. Inthis connection, the Board substantially concurred
with the comments contained in the attached rationale of the hearing
panel of the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB} that considered your
case on 10 June 2008. The Board concluded that the findings of the
PEB are supported by clear and convincing evidence, and that the
determination of the general court-martial convening authority that
your injuries were incurred in the line of duty is contrary to the
evidence contained in the line of duty investigation of the
circumstances of the incurrence of your injuries. 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 entitied 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,
Lo. Yea
W. DEAN PFRYTFFRRE'
Executive r r
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04429-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 February 2010. In this regard, the Board found that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rating officials who determined that your injuries were incurred in the line of duty misread the Findings of the Physical Evaluation Board Proceedings dated 12 May 2008, and erroneously awarded you service connection for the residuals of those injuries. Consequently,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 12114-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 June 2009. The Board did not accept your contention to the effect that a line of duty investigation (LODI) was not conducted 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 | CY2006 | 10102-06
The Board found that on 23 October 1985, the Central Physical Evaluation Board (CPEB) made preliminary findings that you were unfit for duty because of the residuals of injuries to the cervical spine that you sustained on 8 December 1984 in a motor vehicle accident, and that the disabilities were not ratable because you were injured as a result of your own misconduct. VA rating official denied your request, based on their determination that your disabilities were residual to the injuries...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07108-00
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 this connection it substantially concurred with the The Board was not persuaded that the line of duty(LOD)/misconduct determination made in your case is erroneous or unjust. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03466-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 April 2010. You enlisted in the Navy on 29 July 2005. 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 | CY2009 | 10693-09
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 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 | CY2002 | 04012-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 February 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The PEB made preliminary findings that you were unfit for duty by reason of physical disability incurred as a result of your own misconduct, and therefore not ratable. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12362-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 February 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 | CY2010 | 01486-10
R three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 August 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 31 March 2010, a copy of which ig attached. 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 | CY2009 | 09500-09
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. You enlisted in the Navy on 5 July 2006, and experienced headaches during your first two weeks of service. 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.