Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11019-06
Original file (11019-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O-5100




JRE
Docket No. 11019-06
14 January 2008



        


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 13 December 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 by reason of physical disability on 6 November 1985, with entitlement to severance pay, because of an unfitting knee condition. Effective 7 November 1985, the Veterans Administration (VA) awarded you a combined disability rating of 20% for a hernia, hemorrhoids, and conditions of your knees and right hip. On 19 February 1997 the VA granted you service connection and disability ratings for epilepsy, status post excision of a brain tumor, 20%; skull loss residual to brain surgery, 10%; and a scar, 0%. Those ratings were effective from 11 July 1996, the date of your claim. it appears that the VA determined that you had a brain tumor which likely predated your naval service, and became mildly symptomatic on two occasions during your naval service, in 1970 and 1983.


The Board concluded that your failure to properly complete item 24 of the DA Form 3947, Medical Board Proceedings, you signed on
1 August 1985, and your contention that you did not understand the options available to you at that time, do not demonstrate that material error or injustice occurred in your case. The medical board report was advisory in nature. it was forwarded to the Central Physical Evaluation Board (CPEB) for determination of your fitness for duty. The CPEB found you unfit for duty because of a knee condition, assigned an appropriate disability rating, and directed that you be discharged by reason of physical disability, with entitlement to severance pay.

The Board was not persuaded that your brain tumor, which was diagnosed approximately ten years after you were discharged from the Navy, was incurred in or aggravated by your naval service, or that there were any unfitting and/or ratable manifestations of the tumor at the time of your discharge. Accordingly, and as you have not established that you were entitled to a total rating of 30% or higher at the time of your discharge, the Board was unable to recommend 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.





W.       DEAN PFFEIFFER
Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 08923-04

    Original file (08923-04.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Subject was reportedly discharged from the USMC on or about 4 July 2004, and applied for VA compensation and pension evaluation on or about 19 July 2004,but it does not appear that he sought treatment at that time. There appears to be no record of required medical attention until a tragic motor vehicle accident (MVA), which reportedly occurred on 21 August 2004 and left Subject with massive traumatic brain injury (TBI). That Subject’s naval record be corrected to show that he was not...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10102-06

    Original file (10102-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board found that on 23 October 1985, the Central Physical Evaluation Board (CPEB) made preliminary findings that you were unfit for duty because of the residuals of injuries to the cervical spine that you sustained on 8 December 1984 in a motor vehicle accident, and that the disabilities were not ratable because you were injured as a result of your own misconduct. VA rating official denied your request, based on their determination that your disabilities were residual to the injuries...

  • CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2008-020

    Original file (2008-020.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    § 1201 provides that a member who is found to be “unfit to perform the duties of the member’s office, grade, rank, or rating because of physical disability incurred while entitled to basic pay” may be retired if the disability is (1) permanent and stable, (2) not a result of misconduct, and (3) for members with less than 20 years of service, “at least 30 percent under the standard schedule of rating disabilities in use by the Department of Veterans Affairs at the time of the determination.”...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06233-10

    Original file (06233-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 April 2011. 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...

  • CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2012-057

    Original file (2012-057.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PDBR increased the applicant’s Coast Guard’s rating for his bilateral knee disability from 10% to 20%. Although the DVA granted the applicant disability ratings for certain other conditions that were not diagnosed by the Medical Board and CPEB, this Board has consistently held that a disability rating from the DVA for a condition not rated by the Coast Guard does not, in and of itself, establish that the Coast Guard committed an error or injustice by not rating any of the other...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08685-10

    Original file (08685-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 June 2011. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that you are entitled to combined disability rating of 30% or higher for the ear canal tumor and hearing loss, or that you suffered from any other conditions that rendered your unfit for duty at the time of your discharge, the Board was unable to recommend favorable action on your request. Consequently,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02771-09

    Original file (02771-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 May 2010. Your receipt of disability ratings from the VA 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden -is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072374C070403

    Original file (2002072374C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant states that, because of the medical condition that was discovered while he was on active duty, he should have been referred to a medical evaluation board (MEB). Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability. Title 10, U. S. Code, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a Regular member (or Reserve Component member on active duty over 30...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02433-08

    Original file (02433-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 December 2008. The VA granted you a disability rating of 10% for a hiatal hernia with psychophysiological gastrointestinal disorder, history of peptic ulcer, history of cholecystectomy; and a separate 10% rating for migraine headaches. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2006-135

    Original file (2006-135.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The DVA stated the following: The injury occurred on August 27, 1970 in which you were diagnosed with Meniere’s syndrome by the military doctor after the physician performed an examination in service. This application was submitted approximately thirty-two years after the applicant’s FPEB proceedings and discharge from the Coast Guard. A medical diagnosis by the DVA some thirty years after the applicant’s discharge from the Coast Guard does not establish that at the time of his...