DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No. 03868-06
25 July 2007
Dear sean
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval late husband’s in such a manner that you will be entitled
to reimbursement from the Department of the Navy for certain
medical expenses he incurred prior to his death. Your request
was made 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 19 July 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, pertinent naval records 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 regard, the Board found that while
hospitalized at a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facility,
your husband requested to be transferred to a private facility to
undergo a surgical procedure. He requested that transfer even
though he had been advised by VA officials that the VA would not
be responsible for paying for any of his care at the private
facility. As a result of that choice, he incurred certain
unreimbursed medical expenses.
nt tebe tbe embeds cite ae
tna baetrcseaeahcasfins fee
expenses. In addition, it was not persuaded that it would be in
the interest of justice for the Board 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,
Annan haben ene naldndetiiaenencabhineeet sn
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00093-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 January 2002. The fact that the Department of Veterans Affairs recently awarded him disability ratings for hearing loss (O%), tinnitus (lo%), and residuals of a head injury (10%) is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in his Navy record, because the VA awarded those ratings without regard to the issue of his fitness for military service in 1963....
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04118-10
A Navy medical record dated 23 October 2000 (AR 352) indicates that you “recently retired”. In addition, your name and Fleet Reserve status would have been listed in the DEERS database, which is consulted by medical personnel when there is a question concerning a patient’s right to medical care at a military medical treatment facility. A service member does not enter on active duty and/or become entitled to active duty pay simply because a Department of the Navy officer or employee orally...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 01599-03
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. The fact that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded you service connection and a substantial disability rating for posttraumatic stress disorder effective 4 August 1995 is not probative of the existence of error in your naval record. Consequently, when applying for a correction of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 08920-05
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 January 2007. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that you were unfit for duty by reason of physical disability that was incurred in or aggravated by your naval service, the Board was unable to recommend any 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 | CY2009 | 00140-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 May 2009. Accordingly, and as RE-3P is the most favorable reentry code that may be assigned to a Marine discharged by reason of a personality disorder, your application has been denied. 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 | CY2012 | 04500 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 September 2012. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, his naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Records show that in April 1999, your husband was notified by the attached letter (enclosure 2) that he had completed all of Docket No.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09117-07
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your husband’s naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by CMC memorandum 4050.lC LPD-2, undated, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, a majority of the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01170-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive 1 May 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 material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 10334-05
They agreed with the reasoning of the Claims Appeal Board that “in the absence of proof that (you) spent the erroneous per-diem payments for their intended purpose, waiver of the remaining $17,351.26 is not appropriate.” Thus they found no error or injustice in the action to recoup the $17,351.26 in erroneous per-diem payments.Accordingly, your application has been denied. The activation orders authorized per diem; however, the Marine Corps cannot be liable for the erroneous actions of its...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09987-06
And they found no substantiation for your claim that the signature was “forged.” The Board also noted that your divorce decree from 1996 does not contain any requirement that your former husband provide “former spouse” SBP coverage and no “former spouse” premiums were paid. Reference (a) states in part that a married member is enrolled with spouse coverage based on full-retired pay at the time of retirement unless that spouse has concurred in writing to another election requested by the...