Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 08175-04
Original file (08175-04.doc) Auto-classification: Denied


                            DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
                       BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                                2 NAVY ANNEX
                          WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

                                                         JRE
                                                         Docket No. 08175-
                                                         04
                                                         17 October 2005














      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 6
      October 2005. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed
      in accordance with adxrtinistrative 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. In
      this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the
      determination of the Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards,
      Combat-Related Special Compensation Branch, of 5 September 2004, that
      you have not demonstrated that your traumatic arthritis and tinnitus
      are combat-related.

      Although you were involved in an aircraft mishap in 1952, the
      available records do not indicate that you sustained significant
      injuries as a result of that mishap, or that the disabilities rated
      by the Veterans Administration on 2 June 1976 are related to such
      injuries. In addition, the Board noted that you






completed several Standard Forms 93, Report of Medical History, during the
1954-1964 period in which you failed to disclose a history of orthopedic
injuries, and denied a history or current complaint of arthritis, lameness,
painful shoulders, recurrent back pain, and ear, nose or throat trouble.

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 PFIEFFER
                                       Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 10044-04

    Original file (10044-04.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 September 2005. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10798-06

    Original file (10798-06.rtf) 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.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 following documents are recommended: Original VA Rating Decision discussing why the VA...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10323-10

    Original file (10323-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 September 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 | CY2001 | 00878-00

    Original file (00878-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 October 2000. Accordingly, in the absence of evidence which demonstrates that your discharge by reason of misconduct was improper, and that you were unfit by reason of physical disability at the time of your discharge, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02027-01

    Original file (02027-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the injustice. On 30 September 1986, you in connection with your pre-separation physical examination. Accordingly, your application has been denied.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06103-06

    Original file (06103-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 February 2007. 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 | CY2004 | 03279-04

    Original file (03279-04.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 March 2005. 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. 2 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 | 00430-01

    Original file (00430-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 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 | 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 | CY2004 | 04057-04

    Original file (04057-04.rtf) 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.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. In addition, theBoard noted that even if your back and neck disabilities were to be classified as...