DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No. 10754-09
5 April 2010
This is.in reference to your application for correction of your
late uncle's 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 1 April 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 uncle's 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.
Your uncle served on active duty from 11 August 1944 to 10 July
1946, and was recalled to active duty on 27 February 1951. He
underwent a pre-separation physical examination on 23 June 1952
and was found qualified for separation. He was released from
active duty and honorably discharged on 26 June 1952. On 9 ©
February 1965 the Veterans Administration (VA) denied his claim
for service connection for schizophrenia because his service
record did not indicate that he suffered from a mental disorder
during his periods of naval service. The denial was confirmed in
a VA rating decision dated 20 December 2007.
Your unsubstantiated contentions to the effect that your uncle
had a nervous breakdown while on active duty, and that he was
unfit for duty because of his exposure to asbestos, are not
probative of the existence of error or injustice in his naval
record, In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that he
was unfit to reasonably perform the duties of his rate by reason
of physical disability when he was released from active duty and
discharged in 1952, the Board was unable to recommend any
corrective action in his 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 | CY2010 | 03967-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 October 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your late uncle’s naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these Factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of his discharge given his three...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00171-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 February 2010. 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, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02130-09
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 | 01189-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 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. Your receipt of substantial @isability ratings from the VA is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record because...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00796-10
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 12 December 2007, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) denied your request for service connection for thoracic back strain that was incurred during the aforementioned period of duty. Although you were treated for a minor back strain while on active duty, there is no indication in...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05382-10
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. As you have not demonstrated that, at the time of your release from active duty, you were unfit to reasonably perform your duties due to the effects of bronchitis, sinusitis, pneumonia, bronchiecstasis, and/or any other condition, the Board was unable to recommend that your record be...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03314-10
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. As you have not demonstrated that you were unfit for duty on 5 June 1969, or that your release from active duty on that date was improper, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, 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 | CY2009 | 06432-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 September 2010. 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 | CY2010 | 04280-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1” February 2011. 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...