Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08364-06
Original file (08364-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370~5100

 JRE
 Docket No. 08364-06
 10 October 2006







This is in reference to your recent letter, in which you requested, in effect, that the Board reconsider its decision of 30 March 2006, and find you fit for duty, or order you to undergo medical reevaluation with a view toward your restoration to the Navy Reserve in a drilling status so that you can complete the service necessary to qualify for Reserve Retirement.
A three-mem b er panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, Considered your request on 5 October 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 carefully considered your contentions to the effect that another individual with a disability similar to yours was allowed to remain on active duty, that in recent years, persons with severe disabilities have been retained on active duty, and that you have been deployed as a civilian government employee in support of DOD elements, but found those matters insufficient to demonstrate that you were erroneously found unfit for duty in years 2000 or 2002 due to the residual effects of prostate cancer. As you have been discharged from the Navy, the Board cannot order you to report for reevaluation of your condition. Accordingly, your request has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.





You might want to consider requesting that your record be corrected to show that you were transferred to the Retired Reserve in 2002, with entitlement to retired pay at age sixty, in lieu of being discharged with entitlement to disability severance pay. If such corrective action were to be approved you would be indebted for the full amount of the disability severance pay you received, but would be entitled to “gray area” retiree benefits until you reached age sixty, at which time you would be become entitled to retired pay and full retiree benefits.

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 applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice of an official naval record, the burden is on the



Sincerely,



W.       DEAN PFE IFFER
Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | 07119-05

    Original file (07119-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by she 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 10 September 2001 to 14...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03507-02

    Original file (03507-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    December 1997, the PEB made preliminary findings that you remained unfit for duty, and that your disability was ratable at 20%. VA code 527 1 provides for a 20% rating for marked limitation of motion of the ankle, and 10% for moderate limitation of motion. 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 | 09997-07

    Original file (09997-07.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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by NPC Memo dtd 22 Jan 08, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00606-07

    Original file (00606-07.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 13 June 1980 and transferred to the...

  • 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 | CY2007 | 00888-07

    Original file (00888-07.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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by NPC Memo dtd 11 Apr 07, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04052-07

    Original file (04052-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 September 2008. The Board concluded that you reenlisted in the USMCR on 17 January 2003, rather than the USMC, and that you did not have the right to be retained on active duty beyond 16 October 2003. 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 040004362C070208

    Original file (040004362C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He notes that the VA granted him a 50 percent disability rating “with no future examination as they determined [his] disability to be permanent.” He states that the Army evaluated him in January 2004 and that “as a result of the examination the examining psychiatrist recommended he be continued on the TDRL (Temporary Disability Retired List). The PEB document noted that because the applicant’s disability was rated at only 30 percent he would “actually receive 50% of your retired pay base...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01091-07

    Original file (01091-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 June 2008. The record shows that in 1991, the Board denied your request for an increase in your disability rating to 30% anda disability retirement. You are now requesting that your record be corrected to show that you were not discharged on 31 January 1990 with disability severance pay but transferred to the Retired Reserve with eligibility for retired pay at age 60.