DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2
NAVY
ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No: 93-01
24 January 2002
This is in reference to your application for correction of your late husband’s 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 17 January 2002. 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
husband’s 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. In this regard, the Board noted that in order to be eligible for disability benefits
administered by the Department of the Navy, a service member must be unfit to perform the
duties of his office, grade, rank or rating by reason of physical disability at the time of his
separation or release from active duty. The Board was unable to conclude that your husband
was unfit for duty on 12 April 1963, when he was released from active duty and transferred
to the Naval Reserve. 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. The VA rates all conditions it classifies as “service connected”, i.e., incurred in or
aggravated by military service.
and may raise or lower the ratings as warranted by the severity of the rated conditions.
Ratings assigned by the military departments are fixed as of the date of separation or
retirement .
It may award ratings at any time during a veteran’s lifetime,
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 | CY2003 | 01599-03
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 fact that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded you service connection and a substantial disability rating for posttraumatic stress disorder effective 4 August 1995 is not probative of the existence of error in your naval record. Consequently, when applying for a correction of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00946-00
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 | CY2001 | 05647-00
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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07392-01
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your husband record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. ’s naval 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. It noted, however, that he was He was discharged with entitlement to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07874-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 March 2009. As you have not demonstrated that your hip/groin condition was unfitting on 31 March 2002 and ratable at 20% or higher, and/or that you back condition was ratable at 30% or more at that time, there is no basis for corrective action in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02440-07
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-commissioning physical examination on 12 December 2000, at...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05021-00
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 husband’s 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11594-08
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 | 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 04265-06
04265-06 2 July 2007DearThis 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 21 June 2007. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable...