Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06103-06
Original file (06103-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTiON OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

JRE
Docket No. 06103-06
26 February 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.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 February 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 connection, it concurred with the determination of the Combat Related Special Compensation Branch, Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards, that you have not demonstrated that your mood disorder or the conditions of your lower back and knees are combat-related. The Board noted that although your record shows that your left leg was injured in 1981 while you were serving in the Army, the residuals of that injury had apparently resolved by 8 March 1985, when you were examined and found physically qualified for enlistment in the Navy. You completed a Report of Medical History-on that date in which you denied having a history of nervous trouble of any sort, recurrent back pain, bone, joint or other deformity, or treatment for any injuries. The Board noted that the Department of Veterans Affairs attributed the conditions of your knees and lower back to injuries you sustained in a motor vehicle accident in July 2001, rather than the accident that occurred in 1981, and determined that your mood disorder was secondary to the residuals of those injuries.

In view of the foregoing, 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

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00145

    Original file (PD2009-00145.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    Discussion: The CI was diagnosed with PTSD and was found unfit for PTSD at 10%. VARD (diagnosed as Tinnitus) 20080516 and rated it at 10% based on exam of 20080107: The condition is noted in your service treatment records as of May 3, 2007; We have assigned a 10 percent evaluation based on examination findings that has determined, your tinnitus is persistent in nature; the diagnosis that has been given is ringing in the left ear. There is no hearing loss present on the right and there is...

  • 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...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00252

    Original file (PD2009-00252.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The MEB psychiatrist did not believe the CI’s diagnosis to be PTSD, but a mood disorder associated with TBI. All evidence considered, there is not reasonable doubt in the CI’s favor supporting a higher rating, and the Board recommends 30% as a fair rating for the CI’s psychiatric disability at the time of separation. In the matter of the left knee condition and all of the CI’s other medical conditions, the Board does not recommend a finding of unfit for additional rating at separation.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00480

    Original file (PD2009-00480.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was on two periods of limited duty for his right shoulder and he was then referred to the Navy Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). Other conditions rated by the VA (left knee, right knee and Anxiety Disorder) as well as heart condition and right wrist not rated by the VA appear to be what the CI is contending for in addition to re-rating his right shoulder. Service Treatment Record.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00029

    Original file (PD2010-00029.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    While he was being treated for these injuries he reported panic attacks, nightmares, and difficulty sleeping and was referred to mental health for evaluation. No evidence this condition was unfitting at the time of separation from service. The Board also considered the condition of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and unanimously determined that this condition was not unfitting at the time of separation from service and therefore no disability rating is applied.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-00417

    Original file (PD-2014-00417.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the VASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. The VA rated the L3 fracture 40% based on the limitation of thoracolumbar motion at the time of the post-separation VA C&P examination and 10% for pelvic fracture based on report of right hip pain at the C&P examination.Service treatment records prior to separation...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01533

    Original file (PD-2013-01533.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Informal PEB adjudicated “TBI with residual neck pain and headaches;” “low back pain (LBP);” and “left knee pain with degenerative joint disease (DJD),” as unfitting, rated at 10%, 10%, and 0% respectively, with application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The Board could not find evidence in the commander’s statement or elsewhere in the treatment record that documented any significant interference of the neck pain condition with the performance of...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00582

    Original file (PD2009-00582.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The CI was referred to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), determined unfit for continued Naval service, and separated at 10% disability using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Ratings Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Naval and Department of Defense regulations. The VA did not find limited or painful motion on examinations. The VA rated his PTSD at 30%.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012595

    Original file (20130012595.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    c. The CRSC Office was unable to verify the below conditions as combat-related disabilities: * Hemorrhoids; this condition does not meet the criteria for CRSC * Knee condition, left knee; there is no evidence to connect disability to parachute or airborne operations * Lumbosacral or cervical strain of left spine; the documentation does not show accident or incident to connect disability to a combat-related event; the VA rating states his back pain is due to kidney infection * Scars of scalp;...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09097-06

    Original file (09097-06.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 served active duty in the US Army from 6 August 1985 to 21 November 1991,...