Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 05195-98
Original file (05195-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
D E P A R T M E N T  O F  T H E  N A V Y  
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 

2 NAVY ANNEX 

WASHINGTON DC  20370-5100 

JRE 
Docket No:  5 195-98 
23 August  1999 

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  19 August  1999.  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 on  19 October  1995, the Record  Review  Panel of the Physical 
Evaluation Board  made preliminary  findings that you  were unfit for duty IU.;~LIW  of  a 
condition of  your left great toe,  which  it rated  at  10%.  You  accepted those findings on  12 
October  1995, and  were discharged on  28 November  1995 with  entitlement to  disability 
severance pay. 

The Board  was  not persuaded  that you  suffered from any additional conditions which 
rendered  you  unfit for duty, or contributed to the unfitness caused  by  your  toe condition. The 
fact that the Department of  Veterans  Affairs (VA) has awarded  you  service connection and 
substantial disability ratings for numerous conditions is not  probative of  your contentions of 
error and  injustice, because the VA  awards such ratings without regard  to  the issue of  fitness 
to perform  military duty.  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 circurns~anccs of  your  LUL: 

arc such  tlm  1i~ur;lblo acrivr~ canrw~ 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 PFEIFFER 
Executive Director 



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 03499-00

    Original file (03499-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. ( 1 ) OASTF~ESOPHAGEAL REFLUX DISEASE, 53081 (2) HYPERTENSION, 4019 (3) HYPERCHOLESTEROLEMIA, 2720 (4) CHRONIC HEADACHES, 7840 (5) IRRITABLE BOWEL.SYNDROME, 5641 (6) GENERALIZED ANXIETY DISORDER, 30002 (7) HISTORY OF ALCOHOL ABUSE, 3039 ON 29 JANUARY 1996, THE RECORD REVIEW PANEL OF THE PHYSICAL EVALUATION BOARD...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 05329-00

    Original file (05329-00.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 April 2001. In this rcgard, the Board noted that in order for a service member to qualify for disability retirement, he must be found unfit to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating by reason of physical disability ratable at or above 30% disabling. The VA assigns disability ratings without regard to the issue of fitness for military duty.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00799-02

    Original file (00799-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A medical board was prepared in January 1998 and PEB's Record Review Panel In June, 1998, the forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) for consideration. Lumbar Decompression and Low Back Pain Status Post Fusion (72420) The Record Review Panel found the member unfit for duty under VA Code 5295, rated his condition at 10% disability and separation pay. However, Therefore, after careful consideration of all relevant medical evidence, viewed in a .light most favorable to the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06432-01

    Original file (06432-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 April 2002. Notwithstanding those findings, the VA awarded you a 60% rating under VA cod 5293, effective from 17 July 1999, for pronounced intervertebral disc disease, which is the highest permitted rating for that condition. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | NC9807005

    Original file (NC9807005.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 on 26 September 1995, the Record Review Panel (RRP) of the Physical Evaluation Board made preliminary findings that you were unfit for duty because of obsessive-compulsive disorder, rated at 10%. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08976-08

    Original file (08976-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your allegations of error and preweo in accordance with administrative ocedures applicable to the proceedings of this ry material considered by the Board consisted of together with all material submitted in support - thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. You discharge for the martial for an of however, the Boar 1 April to 9 June In its review of potentially mitig service, and the condition of your because of that c insufficient to w The Board was...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00602-09

    Original file (00602-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 November 2009. The MEB established final diagnoses of metatarsalgia and gastroc equinus and recommended that your case be reviewed by the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). The Board concluded that your receipt of disability ratings from the VA for eight conditions that were not rated by the PEB is not considered probative of the existence of error or...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Mon Sep 25 10_02_16 CDT 2000

    On 31 January 1995, the Record Review Panel of the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) made preliminary findings that Petitioner was unfit for duty because of left foot pain, which it rated at 20 under VA code 5272, for ankylosis of the subastragalar (subtalar) or tarsal joint in poor weight-bearing position. Captain L’s opinion, after reviewing four medical board reports (there were actually five medical boards, dated March 1993, 8 December 1993, 26 August 1994, 22 November 1994 and 5 April...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 03548-00

    Original file (03548-00.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 1 May 2001. 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 | 04458-10

    Original file (04458-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 January 2011. As noted above, you were found fit for duty by the PEB, and you accepted that finding, which suggests that you felt that you were fit for duty at that time. 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.