DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
CRS
Docket No: 10613-10
14 October 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 13 October 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 6 August 2002.
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. On 28 August 2002 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 you have overcome the bee sting
allergy does not establish that you were discharged in error or
provide a basis for changing your RE-4 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,
W. DEAN PFE
“ Executive Di
USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00200
MD03-00200 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20021113, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. As a subsequent issue, I am requesting that you record a recommendation for reenlistment as part of your decision. The Applicant's service record did not contain any unusual circumstances during his twelve days in the Marine Corps to warrant a change of discharge to "honorable."
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068426C070402
After carefully reviewing the application, military records and all other evidence, the Army Discharge Review Board determined that he had been properly and equitably discharged; accordingly, his request for a change in the character and/or reason for discharge was denied. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The evidence of record clearly indicates that it was the applicant who requested that he be separated from the US Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080015586
The applicant provides in support of his application, a copy of a letter addressed to him dated 25 March 2008, from the Director, Army Board for Correction of Military Records, notifying him of the decision made on his previous application; a copy of a Medical and Dental Appointment Receipt (DA Form 3982); Health Records-Chronological Records of Medical Care dated 5 June, 6 June, 7 June, 14 June, and 15 June 2006; a Developmental Counseling Form dated 19 June 2008; Orders 341-050 dated 7...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027903
Paragraph 5-11 specifically provides that Soldiers who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards, when accepted for enlistment, or who became medically disqualified under these standards prior to entrance on active duty or active duty training or initial entry training will be separated. A medical proceeding, regardless of the date completed, must establish that a medical condition was identified by appropriate medical authority within six months of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120003331
The disability determination was prepared to assign evaluations to service members unfit condition for use by DoD in determining a final disposition for unfit conditions as well as to determine the members potential entitlement to VA disability compensation. The VA proposed a 10% disability rating for the PEB-referred condition (his left knee condition) and a service-connected 10% disability rating for lumbar strain (low back pain) for a combined 20% disability rating. His PEB...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5369 14
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 this regard, you were assigned the most appropriate reenlistment code based on your circumstances. Further, an RE-3P reentry code is authorized when a Marine is discharged due to a condition, not a disability, and recommended for reenlistment.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 08063-09
°° 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
°° 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 | CY2010 | 01396-10
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
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...