DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
JRE
Docket No: 7392-01
20 May 2002
This is in reference to your application for correction of
pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.
your late husband ’s naval record
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 1 May 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
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.
The Board considered your contention to the effect that your husband was not accorded
review by a physical evaluation board prior to his discharge. It noted, however, that he was
He was discharged with entitlement to disability
evaluated PEB and found unfit for duty.
severance pay, rather than retired, because he had not completed twenty
or more years of
active service, and his disability was rated below 30% disabling or higher, he was discharged
with entitlement to disability severance pay, rather than retired.
of the PEB in his case, the Board was not persuaded that the rating he received was
erroneous or unjust.
of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
Accordingly, the Board denied your application. The names and votes
Upon review of the action
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 | CY2008 | 03527-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 July 2009. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that your disability was ratable at or above 30% disabling as of 12 May 2006, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00878-07
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 were released from active duty on 28 February 2002 and transferred to the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05771-08
You contend that you are statutorily entitled to a disability rating of 50% A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 July 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ali 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,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07928-06
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 June 2007. In addition, it considered an advisory opinion dated 4 May 2007 that was furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps. In this regard, the Board was not persuaded that the notification of the preliminary findings of the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) was mailed to an incorrect address.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03507-02
December 1997, the PEB made preliminary findings that you remained unfit for duty, and that your disability was ratable at 20%. VA code 527 1 provides for a 20% rating for marked limitation of motion of the ankle, and 10% for moderate limitation of motion. 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 | 00093-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 January 2002. 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....
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00606-07
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 were released from active duty on 13 June 1980 and transferred to the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12710-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 July 2010. As you have not demonstrated that you were entitled to a higher disability rating at that time, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in your case. 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 | 00799-02
A medical board was prepared in January 1998 and PEB's Record Review Panel In June, 1998, the forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) for consideration. Lumbar Decompression and Low Back Pain Status Post Fusion (72420) The Record Review Panel found the member unfit for duty under VA Code 5295, rated his condition at 10% disability and separation pay. However, Therefore, after careful consideration of all relevant medical evidence, viewed in a .light most favorable to the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 12476-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 May 2011. 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...