DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No: 10121-02
26 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 16 January 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-enlistment physical examination
on 27 March 1995, and denied having a history of “Rupture/Hernia”. The
report of examination was updated on 8 April 1996 and 5 September 1996.
You were considered qualified for service on each occasion. You entered on
active duty for training in the Naval Reserve on 5 September 1996. On 13
September 1996, you complained of bilateral inguinal hernias which had
begun to hurt about a year earlier, and became more painful with military
training. You stated that you wanted to have your civilian physician treat
the problem. You were discharged on 17 September 1996, by reason of your
failure to meet procurement medical/physical standards due to the hernias.
You were assigned a reenlistment code of RE4, as permitted by regulations.
The Board concluded that you were properly assigned a reenlistment code of
RE-4. It noted that you would not have been permitted to enlist had you
made timely disclosure of the existence of the hernias, as it was your
duty to do. 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 | CY2006 | 05427-06
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.On 20 December 2002 you were found physically qualified for enlistment in the Navy. However, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08827-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 July 2009. 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...
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 | CY2003 | 01647-03
Documentary material considered by the Bclard consisted of your application, together with all material cubmitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Effective 16 November 1994, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded you h 108 rating for inguinal hernia repair with ilioinguinal nerve eritrapment. $he Board noted that although the VA may change cisability ratings throughout a veteran's lifetime, as the :everity of rated...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 03049-98
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 April 1999. As you have not demonstrated that you were unfit for duty because of a lower back condition or a hiatal hernia at the time of your discharge, the Board was unable In addition, it noted that ratings 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03232-00
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. You were not discharged because of the effects of a recurrent hernia, as you now allege, but because of the effect of recurrent bilateral varicocele. 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 | 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04901-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 March 2011. Your receipt of disability ratings from the VA is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record because the VA assigned those ratings without regard to the issue of your fitness for naval service as of 28 October 2009. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07665-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 June 2008. You were discharged from the Navy on 16 June 1972, having completed 16 days of active service, in accordance with the approved recommendation of 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 | CY2001 | 05506-00
In addition, the VA rates all conditions it classifies as “service connected", without regard to the issue of fitness for military service, and ratings may be raised or lowered throughout a veteran’s life time as the degree of severity of the rated conditions changes. The VA awarded you a 50% rating, while classifying your condition as "mild". Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...