DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No. 00480-06
2 April 2007
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, in which you requested that your
record be corrected to show that your name was not removed from
the Temporary Disability Retired List, and that you were
permanently retired by reason of physical disability.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 29 March 2007. 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 served on active duty in the Navy from
13 August 1986 to 14 October 1987, when you were discharged by
reason of physical disability due to a conversion disorder that
was rated 10% disabling. On 27 May 2004, you submitted an
application for correction of your naval record to show that you
were assigned a reentry code more favorable than the code of RE-4
you received on 4 November 1988. You stated that you wanted the
code changed so that you could reenlist in the National Guard.
The Board granted your request on 28 October 2004.
As you were not transferred to the Temporary Disability Retired
List (TDRL) in 1988, as you allege, there is no basis for the
Board to restore your name to the TDRL. In the absence of
evidence which demonstrates that your mental disorder should have
been rated at 30% or higher at the time of your discharge, the
Board was unable to 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,
LSdoans
W. DEAN PFE
Executive D xr
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00878-07
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 released from active duty on 28 February 2002 and transferred to the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05771-08
You contend that you are statutorily entitled to a disability rating of 50% A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 July 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ali 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,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00032-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 November 2008. The Board noted that you would not be entitled to retired pay even if your name were to be restored to the TDRL, as your statutory entitlement to that pay ended on the fifth anniversary of your transfer to the TDRL. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07956-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 January 2009. In this regard, the Board concluded that you were properly discharged with a disability rating on 20% for a seizure 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04071-09
, A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 September 2009. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08664-09
”A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 June 2010. On 1 October 1996 the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) reviewed that report of that examination and determined that you remained unfit | for duty due to a seizure disorder, which was ratable at 20%. 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 | CY2006 | 07928-06
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 June 2007. In addition, it considered an advisory opinion dated 4 May 2007 that was furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps. In this regard, the Board was not persuaded that the notification of the preliminary findings of the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) was mailed to an incorrect address.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06753-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 March 2009. As your condition was rated at 10% disabling as of 10 June 2008, you were not entitled to remain on the TDRL. 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 | CY2010 | 00684-10
You were reevaluated by the Physical Evaluation Board in 1987, and your disability rating was reduced below 30%; accordingly, you were discharged with entitlement to disability severance pay on 28 January 1988. As you have not demonstrated that you were in fact entitled to a disability rating of at least 30%, the Board was unable to recommend corrective action in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00057-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 July 2007. 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. You should note, however, that during the period when your name was on the TDRL, military retired pay entitlements were offset dollar for dollar against...