Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 08695-05
Original file (08695-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC.20370-5100

                           JRE
                                                                                          Docket No. 08695-05
                                                                                         
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 underwent a physical examination on 22 October 1999 and were found physically qualified for separation. On 22 February 2000, you were released from active duty and discharged at the expiration of your enlistment. You were assigned a reentry code of RE-3P. You were not permitted to reenlist at that time because you failed to conform to Marine Corps weight and body fat standards. On 28 January 2004, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded you disability ratings of 10% for ringing in the ears, 0% for hearing loss, and 10% for largely subjective residuals of a hip injury you sustained in 1986.

The Board noted that the VA assigns disability ratings without regard to the issue of fitness for military service. As you have not demonstrated that you were unfit for further service because of the ringing in your ears, minimal hearing loss, and/or residuals of a hip injury that occurred many years before your discharge, there is no basis for correcting your record to show that you were discharged by reason of physical disability. 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 PFEIFFER
Executive Directpr

Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00544

    Original file (PD2009-00544.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    The CI was referred to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), determined unfit for Deafness in Left Ear with Tinnitus, and separated at 10% disability using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Ratings Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Air Force and Department of Defense regulations. At this time he no longer had any vertigo, incoordination, or headaches but continued to have tinnitus, absolute hearing loss in the left ear, and left facial nerve palsy. The 2008 PEB determined the CI was unfit...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 06105-05

    Original file (06105-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. You were discharged from the Navy under honorable conditions on 29 October 2004, by reason of a personality disorder. 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,

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02642

    Original file (PD-2013-02642.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No other conditions were submitted by the MEB.TheInformal PEB adjudicated “pelvic ring fracture” and “left femur fracture,” conditions, rated at 10% and 10% respectively. It is noted, however, that the VA subsumed the acetabular fracture with the hip rating. Service Treatment Record Exhibit C. Department of Veterans’ Affairs Treatment Record

  • 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,...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00295

    Original file (PD2011-00295.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, Board members agreed that the rating approach by the PEB using the VASRD code for malunion of the calcaneus did not completely describe the unfitting impairments resulting from the blast injury to his right foot and lower leg. Both the MEB and VA exams noted residual arthrogenic disease resulting in ankylosis of the subtalar joint and limited ROM of the ankle, right ankle weakness, right foot sensory loss and right ankle and foot pain requiring the CI to permanently use three...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06638-09

    Original file (06638-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 September 2010. 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 | 00290-10

    Original file (00290-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 October 2010. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that you were not physically qualified for release from active duty on 2 October 2008, or that you were unfit for duty by reason of physical disability on 27 May 2009, when you were discharged by reason of physical fitness assessment failure, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11019-06

    Original file (11019-06.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 discharged from the Navy by reason of physical disability on 6...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00172

    Original file (PD2012-00172.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB adjudicated the chronic low back pain condition as unfitting, rated 10%, with application of the US Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) pain policy. 5292 Spine, limitation of motion of, lumbar: The Board considered the PEB’s rating under the 5295 code of the 2003 VASRD.

  • 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...