Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07299-05
Original file (07299-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
                                                                                          Docket No. 07299-05
                                                                                          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 24 February 2005. 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, it substantially concurred with the findings of the Director, Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards in her letter to you dated 8 April 2005, a copy of which is attached. The Board was not persuaded that you should have received a higher rating under Department bf Veterans Affairs (VA) code 5235, or to ratings under any other VA codes. It concluded that your disability was properly rated at 20% under VA code 5235. In addition, the Board noted that the compression fractures of your vertebrae would not have been ratable under former VA code 5295, because Department of Defense rating guidance required a decrease in vertebral height of 50% or more for the additional 10% rating; in your case there was only a 25% decrease.


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. You should consider submit an application for disability compensation to the VA, which assigns disability ratings without regard to the issue of fitness for military duty.


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

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00581

    Original file (PD2009-00581.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The CI was referred to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), determined unfit for continued Naval service, and separated at 10% disability using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Ratings Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Naval and Department of Defense regulations. At the time of separation from service, the 2003 VASRD was in effect. Although the 2004 VASRD was not in effect until after the CI separated from service, if the condition had been rated using the updated VASRD, the rating...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05991-02

    Original file (05991-02.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 February 2003. After reviewing the report of that examination on 14 April 2000, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) made preliminary findings that you were unfit for duty because of residuals of your cancer, which it rated at 0%. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01446-01

    Original file (01446-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 November 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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. on 29 March 1992 and rated his condition...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08116-02

    Original file (08116-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 October 2002. 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 | CY2005 | 05697-05

    Original file (05697-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 September 2006. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, requlations 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 | 05912-00

    Original file (05912-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 August 2001. Permanent stationary disability left elbow status post Mason III fracture Permanent stationary disability L5 disk annular tear (8460) ORIF (8124) The informal Physical Evaluation Board found the member unfit for duty on 19 July 1999 under VA Code 5209, rated his condition at 20% disability and separation with severance pay. member also has evidence...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-01040

    Original file (PD2010-01040.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The VA assigned a 10% evaluation based on VA examination findings of painful motion and tenderness of the thoracolumbar spine with full ROM. RECOMMENDATION : The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no recharacterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination, as follows: I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06233-10

    Original file (06233-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 April 2011. 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 | CY2010 | 07762-10

    Original file (07762-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 March 2011. You accepted those findings on 10 January 1989, and were honorably discharged from the Marine Corps on 17 February 1989 Following your discharge, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded you a 10% rating for the flat feet condition, and denied your request for service connection fora bilateral knee condition. Consequently, when applying for a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05477-06

    Original file (05477-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Rating guidance for conditions rated under VASRD codes 5235 through 5243 provides, in part, for a 20% rating in those cases where forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine is limited more than 30 but less than 60 degrees. That Petitioner’s naval record be further corrected to show that he was released from active duty on 31 January 2006, and transferred to the Temporary Disability Retired List the following day, pursuant to 10 U.S. Code 1202, with a disability rating of 40% under VASRD...