Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01106-00
Original file (01106-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 203704100

JRE
Docket No: 110640
11 September 2000

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 8 September 2000.
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. In addition, it considered the
comments of your counsel.

.that the
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found 
evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.

The Board noted that you were discharged from the Marine Corps in 1998 by reason of
physical disability, pursuant to the approved findings of the Physical Evaluation Board
(PEB), which you accepted on 21 December 1987, that you were unfit for duty because of
several conditions rated at a combined 20%. The fact that the Department of Veterans
Affairs awarded you a substantially higher combined rating, and your current dissatisfaction
with the rating assigned by the PEB in 1987, were considered insufficient to warrant 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



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10963-07

    Original file (10963-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, Sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 September 2008. 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 | CY2008 | 12224-08

    Original file (12224-08.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 June 2009. The fact that you were awarded a combined VA disability rating of 30% effective 21 August 2000 is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record, because that rating was based on an assessment of the severity of your disabilities more than ten years after you were discharged from the Navy. Consequently, when applying for a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08005-09

    Original file (08005-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 January 2010. On 2 June 1999, a formal hearing panel of the PEB considered your case and assigned you a combined disability rating of 10% for conditions of your lumbar and 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06501-10

    Original file (06501-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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 | CY2008 | 08353-08

    Original file (08353-08.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 September 2008. 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 | CY2008 | 11371-08

    Original file (11371-08.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, ‘xegulations and policies. The fact that the VA recently increased your disability rating to 30% is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record, because that rating was assigned because your condition had become more severe. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00860-01

    Original file (00860-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 April 200 1. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00009-08

    Original file (00009-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 November 2008. The Board concluded that the rating actions taken by the VA in your case in 2002 and 2004 are not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record. 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 | 11518 10

    Original file (11518 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 18 August 2011. Your receipt of disability compensation from the VA is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record because the VA made that award without regard to the issue of your fitness for military duty. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02335-00

    Original file (02335-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 June 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...