Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 00511-04
Original file (00511-04.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                                             2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

                                                              
JRE
                                                      Docket No. 05116-04
                                                      13 August 2004


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 29 July 2004. 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 there of , 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 enlisted in the Navy on 29 July 1974. You were evaluated by a medical board on 14 August 1974, and given diagnoses of thoracic scoliosis, existed prior to enlistment, not service aggravated, and status/post congenital cerebral palsy. The medical board concluded that although you were not unfit for duty by reason of physical disability, you failed to meet the minimum physical standards for enlistment because of the aforementioned conditions. Accordingly, it recommended that you be discharged without entitlement to disability benefits administered by the Department of the Navy. On 14 August 1974, you were advised of the findings and recommendation of the medical board, and of your right to submit a statement in rebuttal thereto. You declined to submit a statement in your own behalf. You were discharged in accordance with the approved recommendation of the medical board on 16 August 1974. You completed 19 days of service.

The Board noted that although you complained of upper back pain after falling in a shower on or about 4 August 1974, and were noted to have tenderness in your upper back, there is no indication in the available records that you sustained a fractured vertebra as a result of the fall, or that the fall resulted in permanent aggravation of your disqualifying spinal condition. Furthermore, as the condition was productive of no more than minimal impairment at that time, it would not have warranted a rating in excess of 0% even if it had been considered a ratable disability, rather than a pre-existing disqualification from military service.





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.







Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05132-00

    Original file (05132-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The member had a board of flight surgeons in disability from the VA for a "spinal disc but the member complained of It must be noted The member appealed that The member has been The member testified that all his fitness reports were in the top 1% until he stopped drilling in March 1997. that his cessation of drilling status was secondary to his neck surgery. during which time the member was not on active duty in This is consistent with the member's having been there was no opportunity for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04372-02

    Original file (04372-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    your back condition to Navy or Marine Corps officials after you underwent spinal disc surgery in 1990. The Board noted that although you suffered acute exacerbations of your back condition during periods of military duty in 1997 and 1999, you did not sustain any significant trauma to your spine during those , and there was permanent aggravation of the preexisting periods, you were not “injured” The exacerbations of your condition, one condition during those periods of military duty. VASRD...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00662-07

    Original file (00662-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 January 2008. 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 | CY2001 | 08355-01

    Original file (08355-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2009 | 11859-09

    Original file (11859-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 January 2010. 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 | CY2003 | 01596-03

    Original file (01596-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The Board found that you were hospitalized on 25 April 1971 for back and left leg pain. 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 | CY2008 | 12082-08

    Original file (12082-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that your disability was aggravated by your service, 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000108C070206

    Original file (20050000108C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The formal PEB rated this condition as 10 percent disabling. Even if the applicant’s urinary incontinence did fail medical retention standards, without evidence that he could not perform his duties due to that condition it would not be considered physically unfitting. In addition, the applicant has not submitted any evidence or argument which would lead the Board to believe that a reconvened formal PEB would have determined that the applicant was physically unfit due to urinary incontinence.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04334-01

    Original file (04334-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2004 | 02146-04

    Original file (02146-04.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board reconsider of your application, together with all material submitted insupport t thereof, your naval record arid applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The Board rejected the recent determination of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that the heart condition was incurred during your service in the Navy, as that determination is not well reasoned or substantiated by the evidence of record. Consequently, when applying for a correction...