Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05027-06
Original file (05027-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
         -        BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                  2 NAVYANNEX
                 
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

         JRE
Docket No. 05027-06
13 November 2006













This is in refe r ence 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 8 September 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 served on active duty in the Marine Corps from 23 July 2001 to 29 May 2002, when you were discharged because of testaglia (testicle pain), a condition, not a disability, that interfered with your performance of duty. You were assigned a reentry code of RE-3P, to indicate that you require a waiver of that condition in order to become eligible for reenlistment.

You were not separated or discharged by reason of physical disability because the condition was not severe enough to render you unfit for duty by reason of physical disability. Even if the conditi o n had been considered unfitting, you would not have been entitled to disability benefits administered by the Department of the Navy, because it existed prior to your i 1 and did not increase in severity beyond normal progression during your enlistment. 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,




Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09521-08

    Original file (09521-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 July 2009. Your receipt of disability ratings from the VA for numerous conditions that were not evaluated or rated by the PEB 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 for military duty, and you have not demonstrated that any of those conditions...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 04829-05

    Original file (04829-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    04829-05 10 October 2006This 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 21 September 2006. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 05807-05

    Original file (05807-05.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 enlisted in the Navy on 28 June 1998. Effective 13 November 1999, the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01971-07

    Original file (01971-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 3 May 2006, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) made the preliminary finding that you were fit for duty. Prior to making that finding, the PEB considered the medical board report, pertinent medical records, and a non- medical assessment which indicates, in part, that your back pain did not require you to work out of your specialty as a hospital corpsman, and that you had good potential for continued service despite the fact that you were not worldwide assignable and could not complete...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 06251-05

    Original file (06251-05.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 on 30 June 2004, you were discharged by reason of physical disability, with...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04043-07

    Original file (04043-07.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.On 6 November 2006, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) made preliminary findings that you were fit...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06513-06

    Original file (06513-06.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 in order for a service member to be retired by reason of physical disability,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07874-08

    Original file (07874-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 March 2009. As you have not demonstrated that your hip/groin condition was unfitting on 31 March 2002 and ratable at 20% or higher, and/or that you back condition was ratable at 30% or more at that time, there is no basis for corrective action in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03938-08

    Original file (03938-08.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 October 2008. In order to be eligible for disability separation or retirement from the Navy, a Sailor must be unfit to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating by reason of physical disability. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04772-10

    Original file (04772-10.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 April 2011. The Board did not accept your unsubstantiated contention to the effect that you should have received a disability rating of 30% or higher for syncope, or that you were otherwise entitled to retirement by reason of physical disability, vice separation with entitlement to severance pay. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval...