DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
Y
\r,a:;,,,lv
>:ti’1
i‘c,
.‘
,I
:;
; ,
.1
:
,J
5’
JRE
Docket No: 3
30 October 2001
198-01
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 12 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 noted that in order to qualify for disability retirement from the Armed Forces, a
service member must be unfit to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating by
reason of physical disability. Although you were treated for a number of conditions during
your career, there is no indication in the available records that you were unfit for duty. It
noted that you underwent pre-retirement physical examination on 14 January 1976, and were
found qualified to perform the duties of your rate at sea and on foreign shores, and for
transfer to the Fleet Reserve.
The only significant defects noted by the physician who
examined you were recurrent low back pain and minimal psoriasis, neither of which was
considered disqualifying. You did not disclose any conditions you felt were disqualifying,
despite being advised of your right to do so.
Although it is possible that due to security
concerns, you could have been prohibited from disclosing the circumstances under which a
particular condition was incurred, there would not have been any restrictions on your
reporting and/or seeking medical care for any condition incurred during your service. The
fact that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has awarded you disability ratings is not
probative of the existence of error or injustice, because that agency rates conditions it
classifies as “service connected”, without regard to the issue of the service member’s fitness
to perform duty at the time of his separation or retirement. In addition, the VA may assign
disability ratings at any time during a veteran ’s lifetime, as conditions it finds related to
military service increase in severity or are first manifested, whereas ratings assigned by the
military departments are fixed as of the date of separation or retirement.
demonstrated that you were unfit for duty on 30 January 1976, 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.
As you have not
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
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.
offic
:ial
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01431-01
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. You were discharged on 19 February 1999, by reason of a condition, not a disability, interfering with your performance of 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07721-09
You had no military status during the period from 26 June 1979 to 19 December 1988. , The Board considered your application and all pertinent records in accordance with the provisions of SECNAV Instruction 5420.193, enclosure (1), Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (codified at 32 CFR 723), paragraph 3e. During the 1979-1989 period, you received treatment from VA health care providers for multiple conditions such as hip, back and knee pain, chronic recurrent foot pain,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07634-05
Documentary mate jail 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 you enlisted in the Navy on 3 June 1974. Unlike the VA, the military...
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 | CY2002 | 04463-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 October 2002. 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 | 05283-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 August 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 | 07800-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your application on 14 June 2001. As you have not demonstrated that you were unfit for duty because of diabetes mellitus on 21 September 1991, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in your case. 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 | 03165-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 June 2001. Although you were diagnosed a suffering from several mental disorder at that time, the only condition considered disabling was a psychotic disorder, not otherwise specified, which the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) determined existed prior to service (EPTS), and was not service aggravated. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06569-00
consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Documenlary 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 exi,stence of probable material error or injustice. It may add ratings throughout a veteran ’s lifetime, and may raise or lower ratings as the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07101-00
The diagnosis of Delusional Disorder, Paranoid Type, was thus established at this evaluation. The petitioner's psychological evaluations consistently reported that no delusions were present. However, this does not SUBJ: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN CASE OF mean the condition was also present at the time they were diagnosed solely as Personality Disorder.