Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09496-09
Original file (09496-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

JRE
Docket No. 09496-09
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.

R three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 7 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 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 were discharged because you suffered
from pseudofolliculitis barbae, which is a condition that the
Secretary of Defense has excluded from consideration as a
physical disability. Accordingly, there is no basis for
correcting your record to show that you were separated or
retired by reason of physical disability due to that condition,
and 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,

Wud " ‘DEAN
Tnecubive

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11951-09

    Original file (11951-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on.14 January 2010. The Board concluded that your receipt of a VA disability rating for migraine headaches is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your Navy record. 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 | 13273-09

    Original file (13273-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 January 2010. Accordingly, and as you have not demonstrated that the condition of your feet condition was ratable at or above 30% disabling at the time of your discharge, which is the minimum rating required to entitle you to monthly disability retirement payments from the Marine Corps, there is no basis for recommending any corrective action in your case. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02130-09

    Original file (02130-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the 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 | CY2010 | 00511-10

    Original file (00511-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 October 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 ijs on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09970-09

    Original file (09970-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 January 2010. The Naval Discharge Review Board denied your request for upgrade of your discharge on or about 4 February 2000. 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 | 13238-09

    Original file (13238-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 January 2010. In the absence of credible evidence which establishes that you were unfit to reasonably perform the duties of your rank by reason of physical disability due to any of the additional conditions rated by the VA, the Board was unable to recommend corrective action in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04190-09

    Original file (04190-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 19 June 1951, your commanding officer submitted a presumption of fraudulent enlistment report that revealed you erroneously enlisted in the Marine Corps having been discharged from the Air Force by reason of physical disability. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10713-09

    Original file (10713-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 January 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 | CY2009 | 02771-09

    Original file (02771-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 May 2010. Your receipt of disability ratings from the VA is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record because the VA assigned those ratings without regard to the issue of your fitness. 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 | 01980-09

    Original file (01980-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 the absence of evidence which demonstrates that you should have received a rating of thirty percent or higher from the Department of the Navy in 1994, the Board was unable to recommend corrective action in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval...