DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TAL
Docket No: 13210-09
3 September 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 1 September 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 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
1 July 2008 at age 18. On 9 July 2008, you were the subject of a
medical evaluation that diagnosed you with left laser procedure
for retinal detachment, and right retinal detachment repair with
sclera buckle. This surgery was due to a previous retinal
detachment, a condition not correctable to meet Navy standards
that existed prior to entry. On 21 July 2008, you were notified
of the recommendation that you be discharged by reason of entry
level separation due to failed medical physical procurement
standards. On 29 July 2008, your commanding officer directed an
entry level separation. On 5 August 2008 you were so discharged
and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all 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
reenlistment code given your diagnosis of retinal detachments.
The Board concluded that since you were discharged by reason of
failed medical physical procurement standards, the RE-4
reenlistment code is justified. Recruiting personnel are
responsible for determining whether you meet the standards for
reenlistment, and whether or not a request with supporting
documentation for waiver of your reenlistment code is feasible.
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,
W. DEAN
Executive
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03985-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 April 2009. It 1S immaterial whether or not the disqualifying defect was caused by RP or some other undiagnosed condition, such as optic neuropalhy or congenital nignt blindness as suggested by the retinal specialists you consulted after you were discharged from the Navy. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on...
NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01435
ND03-01435 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20030909, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :010730: Entry Level...
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 | CY2009 | 10757-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 July 2010. The Board noted that applicable regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code to individuals who are separated due to a medical condition that existed prior to entry into the service. 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 | 04000-09
04000-09 20 July 2009 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: FORMER glia a NAVAL RECORD REVIEW OF Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that her naval record be corrected to show that she was assigned a reentry code of RE-1. The Board, consisting of Ms. SMM and Messrs WMA and waite reviewed Petitioner's...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01200-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 November 2010. However, on 23 July 2009, a medical evaluation was conducted and you documented that you had right knee pain and swelling prior to commencing your active duty, but failed to document that fact. The Board noted that applicable regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reentry code to individuals who are separated due to a medical condition that...
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 | 11569-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 July 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 | CY2011 | 05768-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, Sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 March 2012. In this regard, you were assigned the most favorable reentry code based on your circumstances. 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 | 06318-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 April 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...