Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05715-01
Original file (05715-01.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:  
8 February 2002

571501

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 25 January 2002.
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.

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 on 27 August 1998, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) convened to
review a medical board dated 16 June 1998, which had given you diagnoses of
chondromalacia and arthralgia of the right knee, and major depression. The PEB determined
that you were fit for duty, notwithstanding those diagnoses, and the Chief of Naval Personnel
was requested to take appropriate action to continue you on active duty.
discharged for the convenience of the government on 24 March 2000, due to a condition, not
a disability, interfering with your performance of duty. The discharge was based on the
finding that although you were fit for duty, you were unsuitable for sea duty.

You were

The fact that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) granted you service connection for
several conditions was not considered probative of the existence of error or injustice in your
naval record. In this regard, the Board noted that the VA grants service connection and
assigns disability ratings without regard to the issue of fitness for military duty. As you have
not demonstrated that you were unfit for duty because of your orthopedic conditions or
depressive disorder, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in your case.

Accordingly, your application has been denied.
panel will be furnished upon request.

The names and votes of the members of the

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



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05183-99

    Original file (05183-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    __-.. ._ ’ , MSC, USN, dtd 21 Ott 98 found.the member fit for duty on - PEB Case File - Additional Medical Evidence - Service - Memo from - PRT Folder A medical board was held at on 14 January 1998 with diagnoses of: Chronic Low Back Pain (7242) 1. question is not whether the member's performance is "sub-optimal", but rather whether her performance meets required Navy standards. evaluations up through July 1997, which reflect that the member has always performed at or above standard.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07396-01

    Original file (07396-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application OR 22 August 2002. You also received multiple ratings of 0% and one of 10 % for The Board was not persuaded that your mood disorder was ratable above 30% disabling at the time of your permanent retirement. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04548-00

    Original file (04548-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    As noted by diagnosis of migraine that in itself is not synonymous with disability the member's headaches are "generally not Even stipulating arguendo that the member has a headaches the evaluating physician, incapacitating and she is able to continue working through the pain." The member also testified that No one has found any reason for The member has had a CBC, bone panel, HLAB-27, all of which have been within normal limits The member has had two epidural injections 5/5 in all muscle...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00860-01

    Original file (00860-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 April 200 1. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06411-02

    Original file (06411-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    As you may kn fitness for military duty cases where the service presumption of fitness, disorder were considered insufficient to warrant any corrective ove, you have not demonstrated that you were unfit for duty, isability separation or retirement of a service member. The Veterans Administration and the Gulf War Health rked up these multiple medical problems without definitely defining was found “fit” for retirement, his case was not referred to the PEB r not he was eligible for medical...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04090-09

    Original file (04090-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 February 2010. In this regard, the Board noted that the VA assigned ratings to the lumbosacral strain and radiculopathy without regard to the issue of your fitness to reasonably perform military duty prior to your discharge, and that the rating you received for a mood disorder was based on your condition more than eighteen months after you were discharged from...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07721-09

    Original file (07721-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You had no military status during the period from 26 June 1979 to 19 December 1988. , The Board considered your application and all pertinent records in accordance with the provisions of SECNAV Instruction 5420.193, enclosure (1), Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (codified at 32 CFR 723), paragraph 3e. During the 1979-1989 period, you received treatment from VA health care providers for multiple conditions such as hip, back and knee pain, chronic recurrent foot pain,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03612-02

    Original file (03612-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The PEB noted that your performance of duty was not significantly impaired by the sleep apnea or the other conditions diagnosed by the medical 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 | 05991-02

    Original file (05991-02.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 February 2003. After reviewing the report of that examination on 14 April 2000, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) made preliminary findings that you were unfit for duty because of residuals of your cancer, which it rated at 0%. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02290-01

    Original file (02290-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

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