Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 06105-05
Original file (06105-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370~5 1 00

 JRE
Docket No. 06107-05
23 October 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 13 October 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 you 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 a medical board on 1 June 2004, and given three diagnoses: dysthymic disorder; sensorineural hearing loss, left; and chronic bilateral knee pain. On 20 August 2004, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) considered the medical board report and other records, and determined that you were fit for duty. On 9 September 2004, a “reconsideration” medical board gave you diagnoses of a depressive disorder in partial remission; major depressive disorder, resolved; and a personality disorder with passive-aggressive, dependent, and borderline features. The medical board report indicates that during the previous year, you had been late for work or had not shown upon occasion, you had poor interactions with patients at work, and that you had threatened that you would never return to work. The PEE reconsidered you case on 4 October 2004, and confirmed its previous determination that you were fit for duty. You were discharged from the Navy under honorable conditions on 29 October 2004, by reason of a personality disorder. On 11 April 2005, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded you disability ratings of 30% for major depressive disorder, and separate ratings of 10% for conditions of each knee, and ringing in the ears, for a combined rating of 60%. The Naval Discharge Review Board considered your request for upgrade of your discharge, and determined that you were properly separated from the Navy with a general discharge.

The Board noted that the VA assigns disability ratings any condition incurred in or aggravated by a veteran’s military service, without regard to the issue of fitness for military service. The military departments are permitted to assign disability ratings only in those cases where a service member has been found unfit to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating by reason of physical disability. The PEB carefully evaluated your case on two occasions, and determined you were fit for duty. You could have remained on active duty but for the effects of your personality disorder, which rendered you unsuitable for further service. Accordingly, and as the Board was not persuaded that it would be in the interest of justice to upgrade your discharge to honorable, your application has been denied.
The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. The Board did not consider your request for upgrade of your discharge to general, because you have not exhausted an available administrative remedy by applying to the Naval Discharge Review Board for that relief.
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,

Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00080

    Original file (PD2009-00080.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    CI CONTENTION : The CI states: ‘After review of my disability by the Department of Veterans Affairs I was rated at 50% for my unfitting condition and 80% overall for a combined rating.’ The CI’s condition at the time of separation from service warrants a 30%. The Board also considered the condition of Episode of Loss of Consciousness and unanimously determined that this condition was not unfitting at the time of separation form service.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07721-09

    Original file (07721-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You had no military status during the period from 26 June 1979 to 19 December 1988. , The Board considered your application and all pertinent records in accordance with the provisions of SECNAV Instruction 5420.193, enclosure (1), Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (codified at 32 CFR 723), paragraph 3e. During the 1979-1989 period, you received treatment from VA health care providers for multiple conditions such as hip, back and knee pain, chronic recurrent foot pain,...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00416

    Original file (PD2010-00416.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    Since the comprehensive VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) Initial PTSD examination was accomplished three months prior to separation, the most proximate source of evidence on which to base the permanent rating recommendation in this case are the VA mental health outpatient treatment notes from 20060626 to 20060814 (separation was 20051223). Right Knee Condition . Exhibit C. Department of Veterans' Affairs Treatment Record.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-01182

    Original file (PD2010-01182.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB adjudicated the depression condition as associated with RSD, but did not rate the conditions separately. The Board, therefore, considered if the depression was a separately unfitting condition. In the matter of the right knee, GERD, SAR, headaches, obesity, narcotic dependence, back conditions, or any other medical conditions eligible for Board consideration, the Board unanimously agrees that it cannot recommend a finding of unfit for additional rating at separation.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05715-01

    Original file (05715-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 January 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The PEB determined that you were fit for duty, notwithstanding those diagnoses, and the Chief of Naval Personnel was requested to take appropriate action to continue you on active duty. Consequently, when applying for a...

  • 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. ...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00318

    Original file (PD2012-00318.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) initially adjudicated the major depressive order with some features of PTSD which will not be rated separately due to overlapping symptoms and minor compression fracture of L1 as unfitting, rated 10% and 0% respectively, with application of the Veteran’s Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The MDD and PTSD, LBP, migraine headaches, chondromalacia right knee, and left ankle fracture as requested for consideration meet the criteria prescribed...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00213

    Original file (PD2012-00213.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) adjudicated the lumbosacral strain condition as unfitting, rated 10%, with application of the Veteran’s Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The MEB NARSUMs record CI report that her depression was caused by back pain from the September 2006 injury. The 22 December 2008 occupational health pre-employment medical examination records CI report of “Some depression secondary to back pain”, and noted the history of low back pain with limitations...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00431-00

    Original file (00431-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. JUNE 2000 AT BETHESD THE MEMBER APPEARED AT THE HEARING REQUESTING TO BE FOUND UNFIT FOR DUTY AND RETAINED ON THE TDRL AT HER PREVIOUS RATING OF 60% SUPPokT HER REQUEST THE MEMBER PRESENTED UNDER V.A. AFTER CAREFUL REVIEW OF ALL THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE AND BASED ON UNANIMOUS OPINION, THE FORMAL PEB FINDS THE MEMBER...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01683

    Original file (PD-2013-01683.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DATE OF PLACEMENT ONTO TDRL: 20000131 DATE OF REMOVAL FROM TDRL: 20040324 The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of theVASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. RATING COMPARISON : Final PEB – 20040303VA Rating Decision 1 - 20000620TDRL Placement – 20000131Code RatingConditionCodeRating Proximate ConditionTDRLPlacementTDRL RemovalTDRL 2 TDRL 3 Removal...