DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD F O R C O R R E C T I O N OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No: 3548-00
13 June 2001
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 3 1 May 2001. 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.
I I
The Board found that you served on active duty in the Marine Corps from 11 March 1991 to
23 March 1994, when you were discharged in grade E-2 by remm of unsatisfactory
performance. Although you were treated for numerous medical conditions during your
enlistment, they were not severe, and did not render you unfit by reason of physical
disability. In this regard, the Board noted that you were found fit for release from active
duty on 11 March 1994. The only significant defects noted were flat feet and a callus over
the first metatarsalphalangeal joint. You did not disclose any conditions which you felt were
disabling at that time. Following your discharge, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
awarded you a combined rating of 0% from 24 March 1994, for a painful right knee, benign
essential tremors, hyperknsion, and shin splints, and it denied compensation for five other
conditions from which you claimed to be suffering. The combined rating was increased to
30% effective from 27 August 1999.
The fact that the VA awarded you a combined disability rating of 0% effective the day
following your discharge is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your record.
because that agency assigns 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 | 00651-09
The VA st for service connection for three other ugh you had numerous minor conditions that did jidual compensable ratings, VA rating officials he combination of those minimal disabilities ed you with an unspecified “employment arranted a combined overall rating of 10%. Ther as increased to 40% effective 2 December 1998, ive 30 August 2006. compensable disability rating on 9 March 1995 ate the existence of error or injustice in your this regard, the Board noted that the VA ing without...
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 | CY2010 | 06501-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 April 2011. Effective 23 March 1994, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded you disability ratings of 20% for the spinal disc eondition, 10% fer CTS of each wrist, 50% for a total hysterectomy with removal of ovaries and fallopian tubes, and 0% for two other conditions. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07496-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 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. The combined rating was increased to 30% on 18 October 1996, and made effective from 10 August 1994. i The Board noted that in order to be entitled to...
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 | 02290-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 February 2002. Unlike the VA, the military departments are permitted to assign disability ratings only in those cases where the service member has been found unfit for duty. 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 | 05913-00
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 military departments may assign disability ratings only in those cases where the service fixed as of the date of separation or permanent member has been found unfit to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating by reason of physical disability, and ratings are retirement. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02336-00
You were evaluated by a Navy psychiatrist on 11 March 1997, and reported that you felt the Paxil was helping and that you were feeling much better. The increase was based on a report of treatment dated 30 November 1998, and a VA rating examination conducted on 4 May 1999, which indicated your depressive symptoms had increased in severity The Board noted that in order to qualify for disability separation or retirement from the Armed Forces, a service member must be found unfit to perform the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03113-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 September 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. noted that unlike the VA, which rates all conditions it classifies as “service connected”, the military departments are permitted to assign disability ratings only to those conditions which render a service member...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08089-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 July 2001. Effective 9 March- 1999, the VA awarded you a 20% rating for your lower back condition, 10% for your varicose veins, and 10% for a condition of your cervical spine. 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.