Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05495-10
Original file (05495-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

BUG
Docket No: 5495-10
2 February 2011

 

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 February 2011. 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 entered active duty in the Marine Corps on 28 May 1976.
Your record is incomplete, but it appears that you were
administratively separated on 29 July 1976 with an honorable
discharge due to failure to meet physical standards, and were
assigned an RE-3P (physical standards) reenlistment code. On
28 September 1979, you reenlisted in Marine Corps.
Unfortunately, you failed to disclose that you had previously
served in the Marine Corps. On 4 December 1979, you were
administratively separated with an honorable discharge due to
ies}
|

 

failure to reveal your prior service, and were assigned an R
3F (failure to complete recruit training) reenlistment code.

In its review of your application, the Board carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and
allegation that you have been denied veterans’ benefits. You
are advised that normally, the Department of Veterans Affairs
requires that an individual must serve on active duty
continuously for a minimum of 180 days to be eligible for
benefits. The Board concluded that you were correctly
administratively separated during both of your enlistments for
failure to meet physical standards, and failure to reveal your
first enlistment when you reenlisted. In view of the above,
your appli¢ation 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
fave the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new
fand 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 PFE

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11683-10

    Original file (11683-10.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. However, the record does not reflect the disciplinary action taken, if any, for this misconduct. 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 | 10658-10

    Original file (10658-10.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 20 October 1978, you received NIP for being UA for three days. 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 | 06361-10

    Original file (06361-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 mp 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 05185 12

    Original file (05185 12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 March 2013. 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 | CY2013 | NR8164 13

    Original file (NR8164 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 September 2014. 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 | CY2005 | 02140-05

    Original file (02140-05.rtf) 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.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 honorably discharged from the Army on 16 August 1974 after three years of active service. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06860-00

    Original file (06860-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    show that you were on the weight control program during the period 1 August 1976 through 31 July 1977. for the period ending 31 July states as follows: The next two fitness reports The fitness report (He) was placed on weight/personal appearance at-a starting weight of 210 pounds with a goal of to be achieved by 771027. years, 7 months and 21 days of active service. He continued to gain weight through While undergoing the physical This On 31 August 1980 the discharge directed on 20 April...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02884-02

    Original file (02884-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 November 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. duty for 14 days. However, this request was denied and on 9 May 1979, after the BCD was approved at all levels of review, you were so discharged.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 06064-03

    Original file (06064-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 October 2003. The fact that the VA has given you a disability for the residuals of your knee injury is not probative of error or injustice in your military record, because the VA awards disability ratings without regard to the issue of fitness for military duty. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06149-10

    Original file (06149-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 April 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...