Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02440-07
Original file (02440-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100





 JRE
 Docket No. 02440-07
7 April 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 27 March 2008. 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 underwent a pre-commissioning physical examination on 12 December 2000, at age 44. Although you disclosed a history of shortness of breath, chronic or recurrent back pain, plantar fasciitis, and an electrical burn of your elbow, you were found qualified for commissioning. You entered on active duty as a chaplain on 11 June 2001. You were examined on 20 June 2002 and found qualified for separation. You received a highly laudatory fitness report for the period 1 February-15 July 2002 period, and received a rating of “P/WS” (pass/within standards) in item 20 of report, under the heading “Physical Readiness”. You were discharged on 15 July 2002 due to the loss of your ecclesiastical endorsement. Following your discharge, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded you a combined, non-convalescent/hospitalization disability rating of 60% from 16 July 2002, which was increased to 70% from 18 March 2003, and to 80% in 2006, for conditions of your back, feet, knees, lungs and elbow.




Your receipt of a substantial combined disability rating from the VA effective the day following your discharge from the Navy is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your Navy record. In this regard, the Board noted that the VA must rate all conditions that it determines were incurred in or aggravated by a period of military service. Ratings are assigned without regard to the issue of fitness for military duties, and may be modified throughout a veteran’s lifetime. The military departments, unlike the VA, may assign disability ratings only in those cases where a service member has been found unfit to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating by reason of physical disability. Although you suffered from numerous minor physical complaints during your brief period of commissioned service, your record does not establish that you were unfit for duty at the time of your separation. It is unlikely that you would have been entitled to military disability benefits even if you had been found unfit for duty, as it appears that most, if not all, of your conditions existed prior to your commissioning, and were not aggravated by your service.
In view of the foregoing, 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 | 06432-09

    Original file (06432-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 September 2010. 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. 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 | CY2010 | 04458-10

    Original file (04458-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 January 2011. As noted above, you were found fit for duty by the PEB, and you accepted that finding, which suggests that you felt that you were fit for duty at that time. 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 | CY2006 | 00693-06

    Original file (00693-06.pdf) 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. As you have not demonstrated that you any of the additional conditions rated by the VA rendered you unfit for military duty at the time of your discharge, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02290-01

    Original file (02290-01.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 February 2002. Unlike the VA, the military departments are permitted to assign disability ratings only in those cases where the service member has been found unfit for duty. 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 | CY2012 | PD 2012 00822

    Original file (PD 2012 00822.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Chronic Right Shoulder Pain Condition. Chronic Right Elbow Pain Condition. RECOMMENDATION: The Board recommends that the CI’s prior determination be modified as follows, effective as of the date of his prior medical separation: UNFITTING CONDITION VASRD CODE RATING Chronic Right Knee Pain 5003 10% Chronic Back Pain without Neurologic Abnormality 5299-5237 10% COMBINED 20% The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 294, dated 20120606, w/atchs Exhibit B.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00169

    Original file (PD2009-00169.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The medical basis for the separation was an elbow condition. The CI was separated at 20% disability for the elbow condition only. Bilateral knee, right shoulder and low back conditions were rated by the VA and evident in the service treatment record.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00054

    Original file (PD2009-00054.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The medical basis for the separation was chronic low back pain (LBP) and multiple painful joints (Bilateral degenerative joint disease [DJD] of hips and knees as well as the left ankle) without any history of trauma. NARSUM (date 20020917): CHIEF COMPLAINT: This is a 26-year-old male with two-year history of bilateral shoulder pain, back pain, bilateral hip pain, bilateral knee pain left greater than right, and left ankle pain. The MEB diagnosis #1 (Medically Unacceptable) described...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09791-07

    Original file (09791-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 September 2008. In addition, the VA may amend ratings at any time it determines there has been a significant improvement or worsening of a rated condition, and it may add ratings for new conditions that are considered secondary to a rated condition, as in your case, where you received ratings for bilateral hip conditions more than eight years after you were...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01729

    Original file (PD2012 01729.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On a medical assessment dated 7 February 2002, the CI reported complaints as “little finger numb at times, elbow hurts at times.” The commander’s non-medical statement 15 April 2002 noted elbow pain limited the CI’s duty performance.At the VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) examination, 3December 2002, 3 months after separation, the examiner recorded: “Since that time the patient has continued to notice recurrent episodes of tingling and numbness about the left small finger. An X-ray of the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07874-08

    Original file (07874-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 March 2009. As you have not demonstrated that your hip/groin condition was unfitting on 31 March 2002 and ratable at 20% or higher, and/or that you back condition was ratable at 30% or more at that time, there is no basis for corrective action in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant...