Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06315-07
Original file (06315-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

JRE
Docket No. 06315-07
21 November 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 threƩ-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 14 November 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; In this connection, the Board substantially
concurred with the determination made in your case by the
Director, Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards, on 23
January 2007, a copy of which is attached. The Board was not
persuaded that you were denied any substantial right during the
disability evaluation process, or that you were entitled to a
final disability rating of 30% or higher. In addition, the
Board noted that the Department of Veterans Affairs initially
rated your back condition at 20%, rather than at 50% as you
contended in your application.
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,

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08555-07

    Original file (08555-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 December 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 | 09891-07

    Original file (09891-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 August 2008. Your receipt of substantial disability ratings from the VA is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record, because the VA awarded those ratings without regard to the issue of your fitness for military duty on the date of your discharge from the Navy. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00485-10

    Original file (00485-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 November 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 | CY2008 | 08410-08

    Original file (08410-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 November 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your haval 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 | 01227-08

    Original file (01227-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 November 2008. In addition, the VA rated three conditions at 0%, and determined that fifteen other conditions for which you requested ratings were not incurred in or aggravated by your naval service. The military departments, unlike the VA, are permitted to assign disability ratings only in those cases where a service member has been found unfit to reasonably...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09174-07

    Original file (09174-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In this regard, the Board noted that the VA assigns disability ratings without regard to the issue of fitness for military service. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that you were unfit to reasonably perform the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating by reason of physical disability at the time of your discharge, the Board was unable to recommend corrective action in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 13238-09

    Original file (13238-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 January 2010. In the absence of credible evidence which establishes that you were unfit to reasonably perform the duties of your rank by reason of physical disability due to any of the additional conditions rated by the VA, the Board was unable to recommend corrective action in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02133-07

    Original file (02133-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board noted that you will be entitled to retired pay at age 60 as a former member of the Navy Reserve. Although you suffered from a number of medical conditions during your period of naval service, to include the mild left ventricular hypertrophy, a cervical spine condition, and controlled sleep apnea, which the VA rated at 30, 30 and 503%, respectively, there is no indication in the available records that any of those conditions Significantly impaired your ability to perform your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07922-09

    Original file (07922-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 November 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 | 02400-07

    Original file (02400-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    02400-07 3 April 2008This 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 3 April 2008. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary...