Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00097-01
Original file (00097-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

JRE
Docket No: 97-01
14 November 2001

Dear

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 1 November 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. In this connection, the Board noted that although you received medical and
surgical care for a number of conditions during your service in the Navy, none rendered you
unfit for duty, apart from the mental disorder which was rated by the Physical Evaluation
Board. Following your discharge, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded you a
0% rating for the post operative residuals of surgery on your right knee, and denied your
request for service connection for a back condition, which it concluded was congenital or
developmental. As the available records do not demonstrate that your knee or back
conditions rendered you 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 
cannof 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 | CY2002 | 04184-02

    Original file (04184-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 November 2002. On 9 June 1997, the PEB found you unfit for duty because of your back pain, which it rated at severance pay. 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 | 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01446-01

    Original file (01446-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 November 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this 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. on 29 March 1992 and rated his condition...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00880-00

    Original file (00880-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Sincerely, W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Director -- Enclosure i RATIONALE ON 13 SEPTEMBER 1996, A MEDICAL BOARD WAS CONVENED AT THE NAVAL HOSPITAL, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA IN THE CASE OF THIS 28 YEAR OLD MEMBER WITH THE FOLLOWING DIAGNOSES: (1) CHRONIC INSTABILITY LEFT SHOULDER, 71881 (2) CHRONIC MECHANICAL LOW BACK PAIN, 7242 (3) CHRONIC DEGENERATIVE ARTHRITIS LEFT KNEE, 71598 (4) SUBLUXATION SPONTANEOUS MANDIBLE, 8300 -- THE RECORD REVIEW PANEL OF THE PHYSICAL ON 15 JANUARY...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05913-00

    Original file (05913-00.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 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 | 04265-00

    Original file (04265-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 June 2001. On 14 November 1988, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) advised you that it had rated your back condition at 20%, and denied service connection for a psychiatric disorder. 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 | 03379-00

    Original file (03379-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive Your allegations of error and injustice session, considered your application on 17 May 200 1. regu’.ations and procedures applicable to the were reviewed in accordance with administrative proceedings of this Board. The military departments, however, may rate only those conditions which render a service member unfit for duty, or which warrant a separate rating. condition was ratable at 30% or higher, or...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06515-09

    Original file (06515-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 September 2009. 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 | CY2001 | 04188-00

    Original file (04188-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The disc condition was rated on a presumptive basis, i.e., it was diagnosed and found to be 10% or more disabling within one year of your discharge from the Navy. The Board noted that the military departments rate only those conditions which render a member unfit to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating at the time of his separation or retirement, whereas the VA rates any condition it classifies as “service connected”. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 06251-05

    Original file (06251-05.rtf) 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.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 30 June 2004, you were discharged by reason of physical disability, with...