Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06480-00
Original file (06480-00.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: 6480-00
17 August 2001

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 9 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 noted that ratings assigned by the military departments are fixed as of the date of
the service member’s separation or permanent retirement; however, the Department of
Veterans Affairs may raise or lowers a veteran’s disability rating throughout his lifetime as
the severity of a rated condition changes. As you have not demonstrated that you should
have received a disability rating in excess of 40% when you were permanently retired on 1
December 1981, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action. 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.
regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official

In this

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 | 05467-07

    Original file (05467-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    05467-07 1 July 2008 A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your Support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, Corps from 10 July 2000 to 31 December 2001, when you were discharged by reason of physical disability, with disability rating of 10% for a Condition of your left ankle. Effective 1 January 2002, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rated the ankle condition at 10%, and added a 0% rating for a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05545-00

    Original file (05545-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 August 2001. As the Board was not persuaded that the disability rating you were assigned by the Secretary of the Navy is erroneous or unjust, it 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07938-10

    Original file (07938-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 March 2011. 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 | CY2003 | 05968-03

    Original file (05968-03.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 enclosed advisory opinion from the Director, Naval Council of Personnel Boards, and your response...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01667-01

    Original file (01667-01.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 October 2001. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04265-00

    Original file (04265-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 June 2001. On 14 November 1988, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) advised you that it had rated your back condition at 20%, and denied service connection for a psychiatric disorder. 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 | 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 | CY2001 | 06588-00

    Original file (06588-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive Your allegations of error and session, considered your application on 30 August 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Your condition had improved substantially while (TDRL) in In view of the foregoing, your request for correction of your record to show that you were permanently retired by reason of physical...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04816-00

    Original file (04816-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 July 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 | 05647-00

    Original file (05647-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 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...