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
NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 03499-00
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.