Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07435-05
Original file (07435-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~51OO

JRE
Docket No. 07345-05
6 November 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 26 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 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 entered on active duty in the Marine Corps on 7 March 1984. You underwent a pre-separation physical examination on 4 March 1987, and were found to be physically qualified for separation. The physician who conducted the examination noted that you had mild hypertension (136/92), chondromalacia patella, and a keloid scar of the abdomen, but none of those conditions was disqualifying. You were voluntarily released from active duty on 23 March 1987, at the expiration of your active duty service commitment. You were assigned a reentry code of RE-lA, to indicate that you were qualified and
recommended for reenlistment. On 10 December 2003, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded you ratings of 10% for minimal and largely subjective residuals of a stab wound, a subjectively painful surgical scar, and mild hypertension.

As you have not demonstrated that you were unfit for duty by reason of physical disability when released from active duty in 1987, the Board could not recommend any corrective action in your case. Accordingly, 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 PFEIF:
Executive Dir

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00651-09

    Original file (00651-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The VA st for service connection for three other ugh you had numerous minor conditions that did jidual compensable ratings, VA rating officials he combination of those minimal disabilities ed you with an unspecified “employment arranted a combined overall rating of 10%. Ther as increased to 40% effective 2 December 1998, ive 30 August 2006. compensable disability rating on 9 March 1995 ate the existence of error or injustice in your this regard, the Board noted that the VA ing without...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00194

    Original file (PD2009-00194.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    If the sensory deficit (incomplete paralysis) was considered unfitting and affected an entirely different function form the muscle disability, it would be rated separately from the muscle injury code IAW VASRD §4.55(a). While the sensory deficit and/or paresthesia is documented on multiple Navy exams, there is no evidence it interfered with his ability to perform the duties required of his rank or rating. On 23 April 2010, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower & Reserve Affairs)...

  • 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 | 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,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02046-01

    Original file (02046-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 September 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The Board did not consider your request for further consideration of your previous request for correction of your record to show that you were retired under the Temporary Early Retirement Authority, or that you were...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02436-03

    Original file (02436-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 August 2003. Although you had symptoms of spinal pathology prior to your release from it does not appear that you were unfit for duty at active duty, that time. 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.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00863

    Original file (PD2010-00863.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    I then went before the formal board and received 10% with a disability code of 7121 which allows up to 30% disability rating which would have allowed me to retire.” In block 14 of the DD Form 294 he notes: “The following is the VA decision on disability: I was rated at 60% disabled with the following determinations: Right Kidney Cortical Atrophy with Compensatory Left Kidney Hypertrophy with Residual Thinning & Scarring, Aortic Valve Insufficiency with Regurgitation, Mitral Valve...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02771-09

    Original file (02771-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 May 2010. Your receipt of disability ratings from the VA is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record because the VA assigned those ratings without regard to the issue of your fitness. 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 | CY2002 | 06453-02

    Original file (06453-02.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. The fact that the VA has awarded you substantial disability ratings is not probative of the existence of error in your Navy record, because the VA assigns disability ratings without regard to the issue of fitness for duty. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04463-02

    Original file (04463-02.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. 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...