Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 04756-06
Original file (04756-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX |
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

JRE
Docket No. 04756-06
20 July 2007

 
 

NO ADDRESS PROVIDED

 

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 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, 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 regard, the Board found that although
it appears that your elbow and hip conditions were not fully
evaluated during your Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL)
periodic physical examination, you have not demonstrated that
either condition was unfitting and warranted a disability rating
when your name was removed the TDRL and you were discharged with
entitlement to disability severance pay. The fact that the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) continues to rate those
conditions is not probative of the existence of error or
injustice in your Navy record, because the VA awards disability
ratings without regard to the issue of fitness for military duty.
In the absence of evidence which establishes that either or both
of those conditions rendered you unfit to reasonably perform the
duties of your office, grade, rank or rating, 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,

W. DEAN PFE
Executive Dire xr

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08400-07

    Original file (08400-07.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 July 2008. 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 | CY2007 | 00878-07

    Original file (00878-07.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 released from active duty on 28 February 2002 and transferred to the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00171-09

    Original file (00171-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 February 2010. 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, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06977-01

    Original file (06977-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ” The Board noted that it is the function of an MEB, which is composed entirely of physicians, to report on the state of health of the service member who is the subject of the MEB, and to recommend referral of the member to the PEB in appropriate cases. In reference to the question of why Petitioner's cardiac and pulmonary conditions found not unfitting at the time of his initial PEB adjudication and placement on the TDRL, reference Petitioner's original 14 February 1992 Medical Evaluation...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05771-08

    Original file (05771-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 03988-08

    Original file (03988-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 2 oO oe

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06384-99

    Original file (06384-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DC 203746023 W YARD 5420 Ser: 01-01 4 Jan 2001 From: To: Subj: Director, Executive Director, Naval Council of Personnel Boards Board for Correction of Naval Records REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION IN THE CASE OB , Ref: (a) Chairman, (b) SECNAVINST BCNR JRE:jdh DN: 1850.4D 6384-99 ltr of 23 Ott 00 This responds to reference (a) which requested comments and a 1. recommendation regarding petitioner's request for correction of his records to show that he was entitled to a thirty percent...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08355-01

    Original file (08355-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In this regard, the E3oard noted that the VA assigns disability ratings without regard to the issue of fitness for military duty, whereas the military departments rate only those conditions which render a service member unfit for duty. The Board concluded that had the PEB had found your arthritis to be unfitting as of 1 October 1994, it is unlikely that you would have received a substantial rating for that condition, because substantial deductions would have been taken from the rating for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11951-09

    Original file (11951-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on.14 January 2010. The Board concluded that your receipt of a VA disability rating for migraine headaches is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your Navy record. 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 | CY2007 | 09601-07

    Original file (09601-07.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 released from active duty on 23 April 1997 and transferred to the...