Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11237-06
Original file (11237-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O-5100




 JRE
 Docket No. 11327-06
14 December 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 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 served on active duty in the Marine Corps from 14 February to 17 November 2006, when you were discharged for the convenience of the government due to the largely subjective symptoms of a stress fracture of a metatarsal, a condition that was not considered to be a disability, but which interfered with your performance of duty. Following your discharge, the Department of Veterans Affairs awarded you a disability rating of 0% for the stress fracture.








In order to be separated or retired by reason of physical disability, a service member must be unfit to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating by reason of physical disability that was incurred in or aggravated by military service. As you have not demonstrated your minor foot injury rendered you unfit for duty, the Board was unable to recommend any 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.


                                                               Sincerely,



                           W. DEAN PFEIFFER
 Executive Director


Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00602-09

    Original file (00602-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 November 2009. The MEB established final diagnoses of metatarsalgia and gastroc equinus and recommended that your case be reviewed by the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). The Board concluded that your receipt of disability ratings from the VA for eight conditions that were not rated by the PEB is not considered probative of the existence of error or...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05346-07

    Original file (05346-07.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 enlisted in the Marine Corps on 19 April 2004. policy.Your receipt of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07810-06

    Original file (07810-06.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 the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 24 August 1992 at age 21. On 14 January 1993 you were separated...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03617-06

    Original file (03617-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 May 2007. An enlistment is considered erroneous if it would not have occurred had all relevant facts been known by Department of the Navy officials, such as your predisposition to developing ankle pain. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09385-08

    Original file (09385-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    R three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 July 2009. 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 | CY2007 | 05467-07

    Original file (05467-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    05467-07 1 July 2008 A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your Support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, Corps from 10 July 2000 to 31 December 2001, when you were discharged by reason of physical disability, with disability rating of 10% for a Condition of your left ankle. Effective 1 January 2002, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rated the ankle condition at 10%, and added a 0% rating for a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00626-08

    Original file (00626-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 October 2008. 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 | CY2007 | 05221-07

    Original file (05221-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 January 2008. 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 | 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 | CY2002 | 00113-02

    Original file (00113-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 January 2002. The Board found that on 21 November 1994, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) made preliminary findings that you were unfit for duty because of an Ll burst fracture, rated at 30%) and a left acetabular fracture and a coccygeal injury, rated together at 30%) for a combined rating of 50%. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...