Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06398-10
Original file (06398-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
CRS
Docket No: 6398-10
12 July 2010

ear ila zaae

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 8 July 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.

The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 20 June 2006.
On 5 July 2006, you were given a diagnosis of symptomatic pectus
excavatum, which was considered disqualifying for enlistment and
not correctable to meet Navy standards. On 14 July 2006 you
received an entry level separation by reason of your failure to
meet medical/physical procurement standards, and were assigned a
reentry code of RE-4.

The Board noted that applicable regulations require the
assignment of an RE-4 reentry code to Sailors who are separated
due to their failure to meet medical/physical procurement
standards. Your contention that your medical problem has been
‘resolved does not establish that you were discharged in @rror or
provide a basis for changing your reentry code, which was
properly assigned to reflect your status at that time.
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,

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06002-08

    Original file (06002-08.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 23 August 2006 you received an entry level separation by reason of your failure to meet medical/physical procurement standards, and were assigned a reentry code of RE-4, The Board noted that applicable regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reentry code to Sailors who are...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09159-08

    Original file (09159-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 October 2008. 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 | 01396-10

    Original file (01396-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 March 2010. On 16 December 2009 you were given a diagnosis of migraine headaches, which was considered disqualifying for enlistment and not correctable to meet Navy Standards. 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 | 04052-10

    Original file (04052-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 May 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 material...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10666-10

    Original file (10666-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 October 2010. On 19 April 2000 you were given a diagnosis of asthma, which was considered disqualifying for enlistment and not correctable to meet Navy Standards. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the e&istence of probable material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10613-10

    Original file (10613-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 October 2010. On 20 August 2002 you were given a diagnosis of bee sting allergy, which was considered disqualifying for enlistment and not correctable to meet Navy Standards. 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 | 12859-09

    Original file (12859-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your ; application on 13 January 2010. The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 4 October 1994. 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 | 03912-07

    Original file (03912-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 08063-09

    Original file (08063-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    °° A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 March 2010. The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 10 August 2007. 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 | 08063-09

    Original file (08063-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    °° A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 March 2010. The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 10 August 2007. 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.