Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07569-06
Original file (07569-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


JRE
Docket No. 07569-06
2 July 2007

         Dear,

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 28 June 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 were discharged from the Navy on 15 November 1993, in accordance with your request, with entitlement to a special separation bonus in the amount of $47,522.70. You were diagnosed with diabetes mellitus in 1998, and effective 29 August 2003, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded you a disability rating for that condition. On 3 August 2006, you were advised that the VA was required to withhold your monthly disability payments until such time as the amount withheld offsets the full amount of your SSB. Although you had elevated blood sugar readings on several occasions prior to your discharge from the Navy, you were not diagnosed with diabetes mellitus for several years thereafter. Even if you had been diagnosed with that condition prior to your discharge, you would not have been entitled to disability separation or retirement, because you have not demonstrated that you were unfit to reasonably perform the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating at that time. Your belief that you would have been better off had you remained on active duty until you qualified for length of service retirement does not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice in your record.

In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting your request. 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 PFEIFFER
                                                                        Executive Director
                                                                       

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 04095-06

    Original file (04095-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 July 2007. 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 | CY2001 | 07800-00

    Original file (07800-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your application on 14 June 2001. As you have not demonstrated that you were unfit for duty because of diabetes mellitus on 21 September 1991, 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 demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00171

    Original file (PD2009-00171.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Air Force Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) found him unfit for continued service and he was separated with a 20% disability rating for 7913 Diabetes Mellitus using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Ratings Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Air Force regulations. This rating is based on the severity of the CI’s condition of diabetes mellitus with complications at the time of separation from service. I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board.

  • 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...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-01031

    Original file (PD2011-01031.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    Although the 40% rating was not supported by the evidence of the service treatment record, the PEB placed the CI on the TDRL with a rating of 40%. The PEB concluded the diabetes unfitting for continued military service and adjudicated a permanent 20% rating. Both at the time of placement on the TDRL and at the time of permanent disability disposition and removal from the TDRL, the CI’s diabetes was treated with diet and medication (an oral medication and insulin) meeting the VASRD criteria...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05589-09

    Original file (05589-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted o£ your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. As you have not demonstrated that you were unfit for duty on 1 July 1995 because of the back condition and/or the diabetes mellitus, and that you should have received a combined disability rating from the Department of the Navy of 30% or higher, the Board was unable to recommend corrective...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10687-06

    Original file (10687-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected to show that he is entitled to separation pay, was retired by reason of physical disability, and is not required to repay the unearned portion of his selective reenlistment bonus. On 21 December 2005, Petitioner was advised that he could be subject to administrative separation action unless he...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00387

    Original file (PD2009-00387.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    After his first TDRL periodic evaluation he was separated with a 20% disability rating for 7913 Diabetes Mellitus using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Ratings Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Navy and Department of Defense regulations. On Sept. 25, 2007, the PEB decreased my Diabetes rating to 20%, and I was separated with Severance Pay from the TDRL (ref. The 20% rating is appropriate because the CI’s type I diabetes mellitus required insulin and a restricted diet at the time of...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00376

    Original file (PD2009-00376.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    With initiation of insulin treatment, the CI's blood sugar levels were 90's to 160's with no episodes of hypoglycemia, as per medical record documentation immediately prior to placement on TDRL. The Board also considered the condition of Bilateral Lower Extremity Peripheral Neuropathy at the CI’s request. When determining the final and permanent disability rating, the Board must evaluate the CI’s condition at the time of separation from the TDRL in 2008.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00301

    Original file (PD2011-00301.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    CI CONTENTION : The CI states: “After 6.5 years dedicated to the Service of the Air Force (4 at USAFA and 2.5 full-time active), I was determined unfit physically due to the onset of Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus. Unfitting Condition: DM Type I Condition . Therefore, the Board determined that neither condition could be argued as unfitting at the time of separation from Service and subject to separation rating.