DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
JRE
Docket No:
28 June 2001
233540
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 7 June 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.
(TDRL) the following day, with a
The Board found that you were released from active duty on 2 November 1995 and
transferred to the Temporary Disability Retired List
combined disability rating of 30% for residuals of injuries to your lower extremities. Your
disabilities were reevaluated by the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) on 23 September 1999.
It made preliminary findings that your disabilities were ratable at a combined 20%. Two
attempts were made to notify you of those findings by certified mail, but you apparently did
not receive either notice.
In accordance with provisions of the Disability Evaluation Manual,
your acceptance of the preliminary findings was presumed upon the expiration of 15 calendar
days after attempted unsuccessful delivery of the certified mail to your last known address.
The PEB finalized your case for
the Secretary of the Navy on 15 November 1999, and you
were discharged with entitlement to disability severance pay.
In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that you were entitled to a disability rating of
30% or higher at the time of your discharge from the Navy, 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 | CY2002 | 00113-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 January 2002. The Board found that on 21 November 1994, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) made preliminary findings that you were unfit for duty because of an Ll burst fracture, rated at 30%) and a left acetabular fracture and a coccygeal injury, rated together at 30%) for a combined rating of 50%. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07396-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application OR 22 August 2002. You also received multiple ratings of 0% and one of 10 % for The Board was not persuaded that your mood disorder was ratable above 30% disabling at the time of your permanent retirement. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07928-06
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 June 2007. In addition, it considered an advisory opinion dated 4 May 2007 that was furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps. In this regard, the Board was not persuaded that the notification of the preliminary findings of the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) was mailed to an incorrect address.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05882-09
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. As you have not demonstrated that any of the additional conditions rated by the VA rendered you unfit to reasonably perform your Military duties, and that you were entitled to a combined rating from the Department of the Navy of 30% or higher, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00860-01
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 | CY2002 | 06397-02
06397-02 28 February 2003This 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 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07295-02
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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04026-01
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD ANNEX NAVY 2 WASHINGTON DC 20370-510 0 S JRE Docket No: 4026-01 20 February 2002 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy REVIEW UF NAVAL RECORD .“__ Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected to show that he was retained on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05543-00
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 findings of the PEB were mailed to you at your last On 8 June In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that your condition was ratable at 40% or higher at the time of your discharge, and that you were compliant with medical advice, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03379-00
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...