Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05647-00
Original file (05647-00.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: 
4 September 2001

X47-00

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 30 August 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.

The Board found that you served on active duty in the Navy from 13 September 1961 to 8
September 1963, and 7 December 1963 to 5 December 1966. There is no indication in the
available records that you were unfit for duty when released from active duty, or that you
suffered from any significant medical conditions. The fact that the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) granted you service connection for a pulmonary condition more than thirty
years after you were released from active duty is not probative of your contention that you
were disabled when released. The VA must rate all conditions incurred in or aggravated by
military service, and may add and adjust ratings throughout a veteran ’s lifetime. The
military departments, however, may assign disability ratings only in those cases where the
service member has been found unfit for duty, and ratings are fixed as of the date of
separation or permanent retirement. 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 | 00946-00

    Original file (00946-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 18 September 1972, based on a review of records from January and July 1972, the VA increased your rating to 30%. The Board carefully considered your contention that your condition should have been rated at 30% or higher by the Navy in 1963, but it was not persuaded that the condition was ratable in excess of 10% at the time of your discharge. The fact that the VA has rated your condition in excess of 10% disabling since 14 October 1970 was not considered probative of In this regard, it...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00093-01

    Original file (00093-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 January 2002. The fact that the Department of Veterans Affairs recently awarded him disability ratings for hearing loss (O%), tinnitus (lo%), and residuals of a head injury (10%) is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in his Navy record, because the VA awarded those ratings without regard to the issue of his fitness for military service in 1963....

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08848-02

    Original file (08848-02.doc) 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. a 30% disability rating for labyrinthitis. 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 | CY2002 | 03113-02

    Original file (03113-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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 | 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 | CY2002 | 04809-00

    Original file (04809-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 February 2001. Such awards are made without regard to the issue of fitness for military 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 or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11594-08

    Original file (11594-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 June 2009. the 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06569-00

    Original file (06569-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2009 | 04090-09

    Original file (04090-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 February 2010. In this regard, the Board noted that the VA assigned ratings to the lumbosacral strain and radiculopathy without regard to the issue of your fitness to reasonably perform military duty prior to your discharge, and that the rating you received for a mood disorder was based on your condition more than eighteen months after you were discharged from...