Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 06289-05
Original file (06289-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5 100
JRE
Docket No. 06289-05
16 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 his Board. Documentary material considered by he 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 released from active duty and transferred to the Temporary Disability Retired List on 7 December 1979, while recovering from second and third degree burns which covered more than fifty percent of the surface of your body. Effective 8 December 1979, the Veterans Administration (VA) awarded you a pre-stabilization rating of 100%. On 10 October 1980, the VA awarded you a combined rating of 40% for burn scars of your ears, face, neck, chest, shoulders, back, buttocks, left thigh and knees. You were discharged from the Marine Corps effective 31 May 1982, after being found fit for duty by the Physical Evaluation Board. You were offered the opportunity to reenlist at the time, but apparently declined to do so at that time.

The fact that the VA awarded you a substantial combined disability rating in 1980 does not demonstrate that you were discharged in error in 1982. In this regard, the Board noted that the VA rating was based on the presence of scars, rather than your inability to perform military duty because of the scars. As you have not demonstrated that you were unfit to reasonably perform the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating at the time of your discharge, due to the residual effect of the burns, there is no basis for granting your request for disability separation or retirement. As you did not reenlist, the issue of the grade in which you would have been entitled to reenlist is moot, and was not considered by the Board.

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 | CY2008 | 02433-08

    Original file (02433-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

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

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 00028

    Original file (BC 2012 00028.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 30 June 1978, the applicant did not concur with the recommended findings and requested an appearance before the Formal PEB (FPEB) In a letter dated 1 August 1978, a plastic and reconstructive surgeon who cared for the applicant's hands provided a letter to the PEB challenging the notion that he was fit to return to duty. Counsel asserts that while the BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the applicant’s request be denied, an examination of the clinical evidence available in 1978...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00582-08

    Original file (00582-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 October 2008. Your receipt of substantial disability ratings from the VA for multiple conditions that VA rating officials determined were related to your service in the Navy is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record, because those ratings were assigned without regard to the issue of your fitness for military duty on the date of...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00536

    Original file (PD2009-00536.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The History of Right Axillary Third-Degree Burn and PTSD were determined to be medically unacceptable and the CI was referred to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), determined to be unfit for continued military service, and separated at 20% disability using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Ratings Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Navy and Department of Defense regulations. The CI was not on medication for either condition at that time, but Lexapro was restarted in January 2006. The...

  • CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2005-089

    Original file (2005-089.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He asked the CRSC panel to consider granting him a disability rating for the scarring on his face and for skin cancers that the applicant claimed were related to the buoy explosion. In this section, the term 'combat-related disability' means a disability that is compensable under the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and that -- (1) is attributable to an injury for which the member was awarded the Purple Heart; or (2) was incurred (as determined under the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014573

    Original file (20130014573.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    A letter, dated 23 October 2012, wherein DFAS advised HRC that their records did not reflect receipt of orders from the U.S. Army regarding the applicant's eligibility for military retired pay; therefore, they were unable to process his CRSC entitlement. d. A Chronological Statement of Retirement Points, dated 30 November 2012, which shows: * he served in the AUS from 6 August 1956 through 5 August 1958 * he served in the USAR from 6 August 1958 through 5 August 1962 * had a break in...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00640

    Original file (PD2009-00640.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    CI CONTENTION : The CI states: “I was far more disabled than the military medical examiner thought and I was not examined thoroughly enough. The examiner also noted the CI continued to minimize both his PTSD and alcohol abuse. He rated his pain as an 8.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00735

    Original file (PD2010-00735.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The VA exam, one month prior to separation noted residual scar symptoms of the left hand to include itching and burning. RECOMMENDATION : The Board recommends that the CI’s prior determination be modified as follows and that the discharge with severance pay be recharacterized to reflect permanent disability retirement, effective as of the date of her prior medical separation: Subj: PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW (PDBR) RECOMMENDATIONS

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05382-10

    Original file (05382-10.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. As you have not demonstrated that, at the time of your release from active duty, you were unfit to reasonably perform your duties due to the effects of bronchitis, sinusitis, pneumonia, bronchiecstasis, and/or any other condition, the Board was unable to recommend that your record be...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00246

    Original file (PD2012-00246.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    Bilateral forearms showed no hypertrophic scarring and “ROM within normal limits.” The scars were measured at: left upper extremity, dorsal hand 30 square inches (sq. The definition of “superficial” delineated in code 7802 note (2) is “one not associated with underlying soft tissue damage.” The MEB examination only noted the size of the scars with few descriptive details, although the diagnosis included skin grafting of both hands and a 3% full thickness burn to the left hand. With regard...