DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No: 6453-02
28 February 2003
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 21
February 2003. 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 Board found that you underwent a pre-separation physical
examination on 16 July 1987, and were found qualified for discharge.
The only defects noted were a high frequency hearing loss, and the
fact that you were 39 lbs. overweight. You were discharged from the
Navy on 28 July 1987 by reason of expiration of enlistment. As you
were ineligible for reenlistment at that time because you exceeded
applicable weight standards, you were assigned a reenlistment code of
RE-3T. On 24 January 1989, the Veterans Administration (VA) awarded
you a 10% rating for hypertension, and 0% for residuals of a tibial
plateau fracture. It initially denied your request for service
connection for eleven other conditions; however, you were ultimately
granted service connection for gout, tinnitus, and several orthopedic
conditions. In a rating decision dated 21 September 2001, the VA
granted you individual unemployability effective from 21 August 1998,
based on bilateral arthritis of your knees. In addition, it noted that
you were “clearly unemployable” because of your non-service connected
heart disease and obesity, but that those conditions could not be
considered in determining your entitlement to individual
unemployability.
The Board was not persuaded that you were unfit to perform the duties of
your office, grade, rank or rating at the time of your discharge. As noted
above, you underwent a pre-separation physical examination, and were found
fit for discharge. The fact that the VA has awarded you substantial
disability ratings is not probative of the existence of error in your Navy
record, because the VA assigns disability ratings without regard to the
issue of fitness for duty. The deterioration in your condition which
occurred in the years following your discharge is a matter under the
purview of the VA, rather than the Department of the Navy. In this regard,
the Board noted that while the VA may assign, raise or lower disability
ratings throughout a veteran’s lifetime, military fitness determinations
and disability ratings are fixed as of the date of separation. The Board
could not find any indication in available records that you suffered from
significant heart disease prior to your discharge, or that your inability
to control your weight was related to an undiagnosed heart condition, or an
infectious disease process, as you contend.
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 | 07685-00
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. Several other conditions and ratings were added over the next eight your current VA rating is 1998. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01359-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 March 2009. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that you were unfit to reasonably perform the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating by reason of physical disability at the time of to your discharge, the Board was unable to recommend corrective action in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11486-10
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 JRE Docket No. 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 material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08355-01
In this regard, the E3oard noted that the VA assigns disability ratings without regard to the issue of fitness for military duty, whereas the military departments rate only those conditions which render a service member unfit for duty. The Board concluded that had the PEB had found your arthritis to be unfitting as of 1 October 1994, it is unlikely that you would have received a substantial rating for that condition, because substantial deductions would have been taken from the rating for...
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 | 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 | 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06493-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 April 2010. As you have not demonstrated that you were unfit for duty by reason of physical disability on 14 August 1970, rather than unsuitable for service due to a personality disorder, there is no basis for recommending corrective action in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02433-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 December 2008. The VA granted you a disability rating of 10% for a hiatal hernia with psychophysiological gastrointestinal disorder, history of peptic ulcer, history of cholecystectomy; and a separate 10% rating for migraine headaches. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 03499-00
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. ( 1 ) OASTF~ESOPHAGEAL REFLUX DISEASE, 53081 (2) HYPERTENSION, 4019 (3) HYPERCHOLESTEROLEMIA, 2720 (4) CHRONIC HEADACHES, 7840 (5) IRRITABLE BOWEL.SYNDROME, 5641 (6) GENERALIZED ANXIETY DISORDER, 30002 (7) HISTORY OF ALCOHOL ABUSE, 3039 ON 29 JANUARY 1996, THE RECORD REVIEW PANEL OF THE PHYSICAL EVALUATION BOARD...