Y
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No: 5190-98
6 May 1999
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the
provisisns 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 22 April 1999. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures
applicable to the proceedings of this Board.
consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your
naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
Documentary material considered by the Board
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 noted that you were considered “heavy” at enlistment, when you weighed 227
early as 1989. You were tested for thyroid hormone deficiency at that
lbs., and obese as
time, and found to have normal thyroid function. Although you were diagnosed with
hypothyroidism and hypertension several years later, shortly before you were discharged
from the Navy for obesity, neither condition was considered disqualifying, and you were
considered fit for separation. The Board concluded that the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) award of disability ratings of 20% for back strain and sciatica, 10% for hypothyroidism
and 10% for hypertension is not probative of your contentions of error or injustice because
the VA awards ratings such ratings without regard to the issue of fitness for military duty.
As you have not demonstrated that you were unfit for duty, the Board was unable to
recommend any corrective action in your case.
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 PFEIFFER
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02130-09
A 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 | CY2001 | 00430-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 November 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 | CY2004 | 09726-04
09726-043 March 2006This 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 24 February 2006. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02672
The MEB also identified and forwarded three other conditions.The InformalPEBadjudicated hypothyroidism to include arthralgia, and bilateral plantar fasciitis as unfitting, rated 10%, and 0% respectfullywith application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD)...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07721-09
You had no military status during the period from 26 June 1979 to 19 December 1988. , The Board considered your application and all pertinent records in accordance with the provisions of SECNAV Instruction 5420.193, enclosure (1), Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (codified at 32 CFR 723), paragraph 3e. During the 1979-1989 period, you received treatment from VA health care providers for multiple conditions such as hip, back and knee pain, chronic recurrent foot pain,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130017129
On 25 January 2012, an informal PEB found him unfit for his thyroid and major depressive conditions and awarded him a combined 70 percent permanent disability rating (70 percent for depression and 10 percent for post thyroidectomy). The PEB rated his conditions under the VASRD at combined rating of 70 percent and recommended a permanent disability retirement. After his disability retirement the applicant underwent a VA physical examination in which he was evaluated for several medical...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03604-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 November 2002. 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 | CY2002 | 06453-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 February 2003. The fact that the VA has awarded you substantial disability ratings is not probative of the existence of error in your Navy record, because the VA assigns disability ratings without regard to the issue of fitness for duty. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001054961C070420
Her enlistment physical examination dated 19 June 1998 showed that she was initially not qualified for enlistment due to overweight (63 inches and 186 pounds). Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. In pertinent part it states that the enlistment bonus (EB) is an enlistment incentive offered to those enlisting in the Regular Army for duty in a specific MOS.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03612-02
consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The PEB noted that your performance of duty was not significantly impaired by the sleep apnea or the other conditions diagnosed by the medical board. 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.