DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
NAVY
ANNEX
2
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
S
JRE
Docket No:
14 November 2002
9278-02
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 7 November 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.
Documentary material considered by the Board
Your allegations of error and
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.
tibia/fibula fracture, surgically treated, with residual complications.
The Board found that you were evaluated by a medical board on 20 September 2000, and
given a diagnosis of right
On 17 October 2000, you certified that you had been advised of the findings and
recommendation of the medical board, and stated that you did not intend to submit a
statement in rebuttal thereto. On 15 December 2000, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB)
made preliminary findings that you were unfit for duty because of the aforementioned
condition, which it rated at
physical disability, with entitlement to severance pay.
on 3 January
2002.
2001, and you were discharged by reason of physical disability on 1 February
lo%, and recommended that you be discharged by reason of
You accepted the findings of the PEB
The Board concluded that in view of your acceptance of the findings of the PEB, the issue of
whether or not you submitted a statement in rebuttal to the findings of the medical board is
immaterial. As you have not demonstrated that the determination of the PEB in your case
was erroneous or unjust, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action.a
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.
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
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03096-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 October 2002. February 1999, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) made preliminary findings that you were unfit for duty because of the depressive disorder, which it rated at 10% disabling. 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 | 04184-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 November 2002. On 9 June 1997, the PEB found you unfit for duty because of your back pain, which it rated at severance pay. 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 | CY2010 | 04458-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 January 2011. As noted above, you were found fit for duty by the PEB, and you accepted that finding, which suggests that you felt that you were fit for duty at 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 | 04434-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 August 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04334-01
Documentary material considered by the Board your 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 Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) made preliminary findings that you were unfit for duty because of post traumatic stress disorder and major depression, which existed prior to your enlistment, and were not aggravated by your service. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05991-02
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 | CY2007 | 09601-07
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 23 April 1997 and transferred to the...
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 | CY2005 | 00306-05
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 October 2005. The Board noted that you were severely disabled when the Physical Evaluation Board (PEE) considered your case on 17 December 1998, and recommended that you be permanently retired with a disability rating of 100%. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02529-01
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. DIAGNOSIS NUMBER (2) WAS CONSIDERED A CATEGORY III CONDITION. THE MEMBER APPEARED AT THE HEARING REQUESTING TO BE FOUND UNFIT FOR CONTINUED NAVAL SERVICE WITH DISABILITY RATINGS OF 10% UNDER V.A.