Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01667-01
Original file (01667-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370.510

0

JRE
Docket No: 1667-O  
30 October 2001

1

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 17 October 2001. 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 found that on 21 May 1992, the Record Review Panel of the Physical Evaluation
Board made preliminary findings that you were unfit for duty because of mechanical low
back pain, which it rated at 10%.
were discharged with entitlement to disability severance pay on 14 August 1992. The
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) initially rated your condition at 0%, and increased the
rating to 40%  on 17 July 1997. The latter rating, which was based on the results of
examinations conducted in 1995 and 1997, was made retroactive to 22 March 1995.

You accepted those findings on 16 June 1992, and you

The Board noted that disability ratings assigned by the military departments are fixed as of
the date of separation or permanent retirement, whereas ratings assigned by the VA may be
adjusted throughout a veteran ’s life time as the severity of the rated condition changes In the
absence of evidence which demonstrates that your back condition was ratable at or above
30% disabling as of 14 August 1992, 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



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04518-00

    Original file (04518-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 September 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. (a) which requested comments and a recommendation regarding Petitioner's request for correction of his On 4 June 1993, the Petitioner was discharged and placed on records. placed on the TDRL with a disability rating...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04399-99

    Original file (04399-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 March 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 Board concluded that your lower back condition was productive of minimal to mild disability at the time of your discharge, and that the 10% rating...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07496-00

    Original file (07496-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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 | 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 | CY2007 | 05877-07

    Original file (05877-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 June 2008. The increase in severity of your back condition which occurred during the years following your discharge is a matter under the purview of the VA, rather than the Department of the Navy, as the VA may adjust and add disability ratings throughout a veteran’s lifetime, whereas rating determinations made by the military departments are fixed as of the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | NC9807005

    Original file (NC9807005.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 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 | CY2002 | 00799-02

    Original file (00799-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2001 | 04175-00

    Original file (04175-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 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...

  • 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 | 07295-02

    Original file (07295-02.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 February 2003. 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...