Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR1804 13
Original file (NR1804 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

SON
Docket No: 01804-13
15 January 2014

 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your

naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10, 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 14 January 2014. The names and votes of the
members of the panel will be furnished upon request. 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 ail
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

12 August 2009. Your record is incomplete, however, it appears
by your Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD
Form 214), you were administratively discharged by reason of
“Failed Medical/Physical Procurement Standards” that may or may
not have existed prior to your service. On 27 January 2010, you
received an uncharacterized entry level separation. At that
time, you were assigned a RE-4 reentry code.

The Board noted that applicable regulations require the
assignment of an RE-4 reentry code to individuals who are
separated due to failed medical/physical procurement standards.
Because your record does not contain the documentation regarding
your discharge, the Board presumed regularity and thus concluded
that there is no error or injustice in your reentry code.
Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
Tt 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,
Ton >, ete

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05140-10

    Original file (05140-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 4 January 2010, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of failed medical and physical procurement standards due to the chronic pain which was not disclosed. Based on the medical evaluation, you were processed for separation by reason of failed medical and physical procurement standards due to the chronic pain syndrome. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...

  • 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 | CY2013 | NR4460 13

    Original file (NR4460 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 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 | CY2013 | NR3526-13

    Original file (NR3526-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 February 2014. However, the Board concluded that your reentry code should not be changed due to your diagnosed asthma and failure to complete recruit training. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of pReksbls material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01200-10

    Original file (01200-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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 | CY2009 | 00276-09

    Original file (00276-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 January 2009. On 9 January 2007, you were given a diagnosis of generalized tonic clonic seizure, 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 | CY2011 | 05768-11

    Original file (05768-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, Sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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 | CY2009 | 08226-09

    Original file (08226-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    R three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval . 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 material error or injustice.

  • 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.