Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 10079-04
Original file (10079-04.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-51 00


JRE
                                                                                 Docket No. 10079-04
                                                                                
3 March 2006








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 2 March 2006. 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. In this connection, the Board was not persuaded that the laceration of your left knee you sustained in Vietnam 1967 caused the left knee condition which has been rated by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The Board noted that a VA rating decision dated 12 February 1976 states the VA assigned disability ratings for internal conditions of each knee that resulted from “an injury to both knees on or about 2/71 and 10/73”. There is no indication in your record that there were any significant residuals of the aforementioned laceration, other than a scar.

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

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08685-10

    Original file (08685-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 June 2011. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that you are entitled to combined disability rating of 30% or higher for the ear canal tumor and hearing loss, or that you suffered from any other conditions that rendered your unfit for duty at the time of your discharge, the Board was unable to recommend favorable action on your request. Consequently,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02133-07

    Original file (02133-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board noted that you will be entitled to retired pay at age 60 as a former member of the Navy Reserve. Although you suffered from a number of medical conditions during your period of naval service, to include the mild left ventricular hypertrophy, a cervical spine condition, and controlled sleep apnea, which the VA rated at 30, 30 and 503%, respectively, there is no indication in the available records that any of those conditions Significantly impaired your ability to perform your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06051-08

    Original file (06051-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 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 material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00021-09

    Original file (00021-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 March 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Director, Secretary of the Navy Council of Personnel Boards dated 23 November 2009 and your response thereto. Among the records in that Folder are two civilian health record entries of note which you did not submit in support of your application.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05464-06

    Original file (05464-06.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 Board found that you were evaluated by the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) on 18 January 2006...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05467-07

    Original file (05467-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    05467-07 1 July 2008 A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your Support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, Corps from 10 July 2000 to 31 December 2001, when you were discharged by reason of physical disability, with disability rating of 10% for a Condition of your left ankle. Effective 1 January 2002, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rated the ankle condition at 10%, and added a 0% rating for a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06515-09

    Original file (06515-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 September 2009. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04018-08

    Original file (04018-08.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 March 2009. The Board concluded that your receipt of substantial disability ratings from the VA effective the day after you were discharged from the Navy is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your Navy record. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00880-00

    Original file (00880-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Sincerely, W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Director -- Enclosure i RATIONALE ON 13 SEPTEMBER 1996, A MEDICAL BOARD WAS CONVENED AT THE NAVAL HOSPITAL, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA IN THE CASE OF THIS 28 YEAR OLD MEMBER WITH THE FOLLOWING DIAGNOSES: (1) CHRONIC INSTABILITY LEFT SHOULDER, 71881 (2) CHRONIC MECHANICAL LOW BACK PAIN, 7242 (3) CHRONIC DEGENERATIVE ARTHRITIS LEFT KNEE, 71598 (4) SUBLUXATION SPONTANEOUS MANDIBLE, 8300 -- THE RECORD REVIEW PANEL OF THE PHYSICAL ON 15 JANUARY...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00602-09

    Original file (00602-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 November 2009. The MEB established final diagnoses of metatarsalgia and gastroc equinus and recommended that your case be reviewed by the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). The Board concluded that your receipt of disability ratings from the VA for eight conditions that were not rated by the PEB is not considered probative of the existence of error or...