Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 12163-10
Original file (12163-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5106

 

JRE ,
Docket No. 12163-10
11 August 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 11
August 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 Navy on 21 October 1965. You sought
medical treatment for back pain on 23 November 1965 and reported that
you had injured your back about three months earlier. You were
discharged from the Navy on 22 July 1966, without entitlement to
disability benefits, by reason of chronic low back strain that
existed prior to your enlistment and was not aggravated by your naval
service.

In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that you were unfit
for duty by reason of physical disability that was incurred in or
aggravated by your naval service, the Board was unable to recommend
favorable action on your application. 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,

Wena.

W. DEAN PP
Executive Divector

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05997-10

    Original file (05997-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 March 2011. You enlisted in the Navy on 8 March 2006. 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 | 04664-10

    Original file (04664-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    R three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 February 2011. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that you were fit for duty on 31 March 1998 and therefore discharged in error, the Board concluded that there was no basis for correcting your record to show that you received a more favorable reentry code than RE-3P. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10876-10

    Original file (10876-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10883-10

    Original file (10883-10.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. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that the mental disorder that caused you to be discharged by reason of physical disability was incurred in or aggravated by your period of naval service, the Board was unable to recommend favorable action on your request. Consequently,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 01596-03

    Original file (01596-03.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. The Board found that you were hospitalized on 25 April 1971 for back and left leg pain. 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 | 06985-10

    Original file (06985-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 April 2011. You served on active duty in the Marine Corps from 19 August to 29 October 2002, when you were discharged for the convenience of the government by reason of a condition not a disability, with an uncharacterized entry level separation (ELS). Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 10503-05

    Original file (10503-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 March 2007. 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 | CY2004 | 00511-04

    Original file (00511-04.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.The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 29 July 1974. Accordingly, it recommended that...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 04145 11

    Original file (04145 11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, Sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 August 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04145 11

    Original file (04145 11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, Sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 August 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...