DEPARTMENTOFTHE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAV Y ANNE X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
JRE
Docket No: 32
8 October 2002
13-02
This is in reference to your
provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.
application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures
applicable to the proceedings of this Board.
consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your
naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
on 12 September 2002. Your allegations of error and
Documentary 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 existence of probable material error or
injustice.
The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 26 November 1996.
broken clavicle and a back injury on 10 August 2001.
physical examination on 15 August 2001, and were found physically qualified for separation.
The clavicle fracture was reevaluated by a physician on 23 August 2001.
tender at that time, and x-ray evaluation showed no evidence of healing of the fracture.
You sustained a
You underwent a pre-separation
The area was still
The
physician felt there was a chance the fracture would
that were to occur, you would require an open reduction and internal fixation of the fracture
in about six months. He noted that you were planning to be released from active duty during
September 2001, and that a procedure to fix the fracture may need to be done at a
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facility.
duty on 25 October 2001, and assigned a reenlistment code of RE-Rl, to indicate that you
were qualified and recommended for reenlistment.
The Board carefully considered your contention to the effect that you were released from
active duty with the expectation of receiving disability compensation and medical care from
the VA, but that there was an inordinate delay in obtaining benefits from the VA.
that contention insufficient to warrant the correction of your record.
were voluntarily released from active duty after being found fit for separation. While it is
unfortunate that you did not receive timely assistance from the VA, that does not provide a
basis for correcting your record to show that you were retired by reason of physical
disability. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the
members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
As noted above, you
It found
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.
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.
In this regard, it is
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001609
He states he was medically discharged secondary to a left shoulder injury through a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The applicant provides the following documents in support of his application: a DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States); a Major Personnel Action Inquiry; a memorandum, subject: Physical Disability Separation, dated 20 March 2001; his discharge orders from the U.S. Army Reserve, dated 20 March 2001; his DD Form 261...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082762C070215
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, the applicant requests that his records be corrected to show that he was in an active duty status from 18 August 1995, the date that he injured his shoulder, until 6 April 2001, the date of his discharge from the Army Reserve because of his physical disability, and that he be awarded retroactive pay and allowances for that period. On 17 October 1996 the applicant's unit administrator requested that the commander of the applicant's basic training unit complete...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03113-02
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...
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01749
The MEB forwarded “left femur fracture” and “left clavicle fracture” to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501. Code 5255 offers analogous ratings aligned with “knee or hip disability” (knee was prominent impairment in this case) of 10% for “slight” disability, 20% for “moderate,” and 30% for “marked.”Members deliberated at length the issue in this case that the CI was separated prior to full recovery, and whether the Board’s recommendation should logically reflect the disability...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00113-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 January 2002. The Board found that on 21 November 1994, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) made preliminary findings that you were unfit for duty because of an Ll burst fracture, rated at 30%) and a left acetabular fracture and a coccygeal injury, rated together at 30%) for a combined rating of 50%. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00054
The medical basis for the separation was chronic low back pain (LBP) and multiple painful joints (Bilateral degenerative joint disease [DJD] of hips and knees as well as the left ankle) without any history of trauma. NARSUM (date 20020917): CHIEF COMPLAINT: This is a 26-year-old male with two-year history of bilateral shoulder pain, back pain, bilateral hip pain, bilateral knee pain left greater than right, and left ankle pain. The MEB diagnosis #1 (Medically Unacceptable) described...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 05954-03
Osgood- In this regard, The Board noted that your receipt of a disability benefits from the VA does not demonstrate that your discharge from the Marine Corps was erroneous. As you have not demonstrated that any of the conditions rated by the VA, either separately or in combination with others, rendered you unfit for duty at the time of your discharge from the Marine Corps, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01149-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 March 2002. 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...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2004-099
On March 4, 2004, the applicant was discharged from the Coast Guard by reason of unacceptable conduct with the corresponding JNC separation code. of the PDES Manual, such disorders are not physical disabilities and service members who suffer from such conditions are not processed under the physical disability evaluation system, but may be administratively separated under Chapter 12 of the Personnel Manual. In light of this finding, TJAG's recommendation that the applicant's DD Form 214 be...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01060-01
A three-niember panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 November 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...