Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07685-00
Original file (07685-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370.5100

Docket No: 
16 January 2001

768500

P

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 11 January 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.

the 

Marine Corps during World War II
Korean Conflict. You underwent a pre-separation physical examination on 6 June

The Board found that you served on active duty in the 
and 
1951, and were found qualified for discharge. You were discharged by reason of
dependency on 11 June 1951. The Veterans Administration (VA) awarded you a 0% rating
for residuals of a broken tibia from 12 June 1951,  and added ratings of 30% for post
traumatic stress disorder from 23 January 1992, and 20% for Raynaud’s disease from 3
March 1994. Several other conditions and ratings were added over the next eight 
your current VA rating is 
1998.

90%) with a finding of individual unemployability from 11 June

yw, and

The fact that you have been awarded substantial disability ratings by the VA was not
considered probative of error or injustice in your case.
the VA awards disability ratings without regard to the issue of fitness for military duty,
whereas the military departments may assign ratings only in those cases where the service
member 
In addition, the Board noted that although the VA

In this regard, the Board noted that

been found unfit for duty.

has 



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 06153-05

    Original file (06153-05.rtf) 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.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 underwent a pre-enlistment physical examination on 23 June 2001 and were...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00009-08

    Original file (00009-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 November 2008. The Board concluded that the rating actions taken by the VA in your case in 2002 and 2004 are not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record. 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 | 02336-00

    Original file (02336-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You were evaluated by a Navy psychiatrist on 11 March 1997, and reported that you felt the Paxil was helping and that you were feeling much better. The increase was based on a report of treatment dated 30 November 1998, and a VA rating examination conducted on 4 May 1999, which indicated your depressive symptoms had increased in severity The Board noted that in order to qualify for disability separation or retirement from the Armed Forces, a service member must be found unfit to perform the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07762-10

    Original file (07762-10.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. You accepted those findings on 10 January 1989, and were honorably discharged from the Marine Corps on 17 February 1989 Following your discharge, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded you a 10% rating for the flat feet condition, and denied your request for service connection fora bilateral knee condition. Consequently, when applying for a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01979-02

    Original file (01979-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 October 2002. The fact that the VA has awarded you substantial disability rating is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record because the VA assigns ratings without regard to the issue of fitness for military duty, and it may raise, lower, or assign ratings throughout a veteran ’s life time. Consequently, when applying for a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08797-09

    Original file (08797-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 June 2010. Your receipt of a combined disability rating of 10% from the VA shortly after you were released from active duty is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record because those ratings were assigned without regard to the issue of your fitness for military duty on 25 June 1985. Consequently, when applying for a correction of...

  • 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 | CY2009 | 04190-09

    Original file (04190-09.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. On 19 June 1951, your commanding officer submitted a presumption of fraudulent enlistment report that revealed you erroneously enlisted in the Marine Corps having been discharged from the Air Force by reason of physical disability. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04586-10

    Original file (04586-10.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 VA assigns disability ratings without regard to the issue of the veteran’s fitness for military duty, whereas the military departments rate only those conditions that render a service member unfit for duty. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05589-09

    Original file (05589-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted o£ 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 you were unfit for duty on 1 July 1995 because of the back condition and/or the diabetes mellitus, and that you should have received a combined disability rating from the Department of the Navy of 30% or higher, the Board was unable to recommend corrective...