DE PA RTMENT OF THE NAV Y
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAW ANNEX
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No: 6664-99
24 October 2000
Dear
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 13 October 2000. 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.
F3oard found that you were the subject of an Abbreviated Limited Duty Medical Board
The
Report dated 28 February 1996. As a result, you were placed on limited duty for a period of
six months for treatment of a gynecological condition. You were reevaluated on 9 July
1996, and it was determined that your symptoms had largely resolved. You received a
fitness report for the 1 March -8 [sic] August 1996 period, in which the ratings and narrative
comments are laudatory, and your reporting senior indicates that you had a
“[hligh first class
PFT’ score. You were released from active duty and discharged from the Marine Corps on 4
August 1996. On 16 April 1997, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded you a
10% rating for the gynecological disorder, 10% for an allergy condition, and 0% for several
other conditions. On 31 August 1999, the VA increased the rating for the gynecological
condition to
3096, effective from 1 September 1996, based, in large part, on the deterioration
of your condition which occurred following your release from active duty. You were given a
temporary 100% rating during your convalescence from a hysterectomy, and a 50% rating
thereafter.
The Board rejected your unsubstantiated contention to the effect that you were taken off
medical hold because you had reached your expiration of active service
(EAS), and that you
were told to seek care from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). As indicated above,
you were retained on active duty for a brief period in order to attempt medical control of
your gynecological condition, and you were discharged after the condition became
asymptomatic. You were not placed on limited duty because you were unable to perform
your duties, and there is no indication in the available records that you were unfit for duty
when discharged. The Board noted you were assigned a reenlistment code of
RE-lA, which
indicates you were eligible and recommended for reenlistment, and could have remained on
active duty had you opted to reenlist.
In view of the foregoing, 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 | CY2001 | 07496-00
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014525
Her medical evaluation board (MEB) noted her conditions of severe pes planus (both feet) and patellofemoral syndrome (both knees). Her records show she was evaluated by an MEB and PEB to determine whether she was fit for duty based on her rank and military specialty. The VA is not required to find unfitness for duty.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02436-03
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 August 2003. Although you had symptoms of spinal pathology prior to your release from it does not appear that you were unfit for duty at active duty, 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 | 07613-01
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Director, Naval Council of Personnel Boards dated 26 August 2002, a copy of which is attached, and the comments of your counsel. 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. This letter responds to reference (a) which requested comments and a recommendation regarding Petitioner's request...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01789
The MEB examiner described the CI’s current functional status as “required to miss fairly frequent work duties due to the migraine headaches.”The MEB examiner provided a pain rating of slight/intermittent.The commander’s statement noted that “at various times” the CI had to “leave work due to migraines or abdominal pains that incapacitates her to work.”The VA C&P exam on 25 February 2005, performed 2 monthsafter separation, did not address the migraine condition, but listed 12 conditions...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072143C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. She states that she was discharged without being compensated, and that she was never given a separation physical before she was discharged. On 13 February 2001 the VA granted her a 30 percent service connected disability rating for pyelolithotomy, effective 16 May 2000.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02290-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 February 2002. Unlike the VA, the military departments are permitted to assign disability ratings only in those cases where the service member has been found unfit for 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 | CY2002 | 06977-01
” The Board noted that it is the function of an MEB, which is composed entirely of physicians, to report on the state of health of the service member who is the subject of the MEB, and to recommend referral of the member to the PEB in appropriate cases. In reference to the question of why Petitioner's cardiac and pulmonary conditions found not unfitting at the time of his initial PEB adjudication and placement on the TDRL, reference Petitioner's original 14 February 1992 Medical Evaluation...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04458-10
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 | CY2008 | 10067-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 July 2009. 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...