Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01070-07
Original file (01070-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100




 JRE
 Docket No. 01070-07
 3 January 2008












This is in reference to your application fo r correction of youi 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 enlisted in the Marine Corps on 1 May 1969. On 5 May 1969, you sought medical care for a recurrent pilonidal cyst, which existed prior to your enlistment. On 20 May 1969, a medical board determined that you did not meet the minimum physical standards for enlistment because of the recurrent pilonidal cyst, and recommended that you be discharged without entitlement to disability benefits administered by the Department of the Navy. You were advised of the findings and recommendation of the medical board on 20 may 1969, and declined to submit a statement in rebuttal. You were discharged in accordance with the approved recommendation of the medical board on 27 May 1969.

In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that you were unfit for duty by reason of physical disability that was incurred in or aggravated by your twenty-seven days of active service, the Boardwas 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.
Sincerely,



W. DEAN PFIEFFER
                                                                         Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00601-09

    Original file (00601-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 January 2010. 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 | 00314-07

    Original file (00314-07.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. The Board concluded that the entry in your evaluation report for the 17 January-5 November 1968 period concerning “trouble” with your back” refers to recurrent infections of a pilonidal cyst which required extensive treatment, rather than to a traumatic back injury. Consequently, when...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01934

    Original file (PD-2013-01934.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No other conditions were submitted by the MEB.The Informal PEB adjudicated “recurring pilonidal cyst”as unfitting, rated 10%, with likely application of VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD).The CI made no appeals and was medically separated. The rating for the unfitting recurring pilonidal cyst condition is addressed below including possible residuals; no additional conditions are within the DoDI 6040.44 defined purview of the Board. Additionally, he also had difficulties with his...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00262

    Original file (PD2009-00262.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the progress note dated 1 May 2008, the rheumatologist stated his fatigue, chronic back pain, non-restorative sleep pattern, and muscle skeletal pain suggests fibrositis but he didn’t meet the ACR criteria for fibromyalgia because he did not have 11/18 trigger points positive. Pain was rated 8.5/10. On 23 April 2010, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower & Reserve Affairs) took action in your case by accepting the recommendation of the PDBR that no change be made to the...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02561

    Original file (PD-2013-02561.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. The VASRD defines an unstable scar as one “where, for any reason, there is frequent skin loss or covering of the skin of the scar.” The VA rated the pilonidal cyst conditionat 10%, coded 7804 (scars) citing the scar to...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101864

    Original file (MD1101864.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Since the Applicant served only 16 days, an Uncharacterized discharge is the most appropriate characterization of service.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and discharge process, the Board found the discharge was proper but not equitable.Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall but the narrative reason for separation shall change to.The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130016789

    Original file (20130016789.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The MEB's medically-acceptable conditions listed above met medical retention standards and were found to not be unfitting, either independently or in combination with any other conditions. The PEB recommended a combined 10-percent disability rating and separation with severance pay. Percentage ratings reflect the severity of the Soldier's medical condition at the time of rating.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02797

    Original file (BC-2003-02797.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2003-02797 INDEX CODE 110.02 100.06 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The reason for his 2003 entry-level separation (ELS) be changed and his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from “4C” to “2Q” or “3K.” _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 05166

    Original file (BC 2012 05166.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 9 Jan 12, after considering the applicant’s statement, the commander decided to file the LOR in his UIF.. On 13 Jan 12, according to documentation provided by the applicant, a general surgery provider indicated he was under the care of the General Surgery Clinic due to chronic recurrent problems with a pilonidal cyst during the period 10 Jan 12 thru 13 Jan 13. On 29 Jan 13, the applicant’s EPR, rendered for the period 21 Dec 11 thru 20 Dec 12, was referred to him for a rating of “Does...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00663

    Original file (PD2009-00663.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    Left Knee Condition . Other Conditions : The CI additionally contended for lower back, and depression with insomnia conditions which the VA rated and associated with the CI’s knee condition; tinnitus which the VA rated at 10%; and right leg and bilateral ankles. Exhibit C. Department of Veterans' Affairs Treatment Record.