Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00582-08
Original file (00582-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE

Docket No. 00582-08
16 October 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 9 October 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-separation physical
examination on 14 July 1976 and were found qualified for
discharge. You completed a Report of Medical History (Standard
Form 93) on that date in which you stated that your health was
good, and failed to disclose a history of injuries sustained in
a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 1 May 1976. You were
discharged under honorable conditions by reason of a personality
AGisorder on 15 July 1976. The Veterans Administration ( VA)
awarded you a 0% rating for a forehead scar effective 13 August
1979. On 15 December 2006, the VA awarded you separate
disability ratings of 10% for three orthopedic conditions and a
mental disorder considered to be related to motor vehicle
accident that occurred on 1 May 1976. Your combined VA ratings
were 10% from 25 October 1999, 20% from 21 January 2000, 30%
from 7 April 2005, and 40% from 1 December 2005.

Your receipt of substantial disability ratings from the VA for
multiple conditions that VA rating officials determined were
related to your service in the Navy is not probative of the
existence of error or injustice in your naval record, because
those ratings were assigned without regard to the issue of your
fitness for military duty on the date of your discharge. In
addition, the ratings were increased over time to reflect
changes in your condition that occurred long after you were
discharged. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that
you were unfit to reasonably perform the duties of your rate by
reason of physical disability on 15 July 1976, there is no basis
for granting your request for disability separation or
retirement. Accordingly, and as you have not demonstrated that
it would be in the interest of justice to upgrade the
characterization of your service to fully honorable, 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,

Lea eel

W. DEAN P
Executive D

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01068-10

    Original file (01068-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 January 2011. In addition, the Board noted that although the VA may increase a veteran's disability ratings at any time to reflect changes in the degree of severity of rated conditions, disability determinations made by the military departments are fixed as of the date of the service member’s release from active duty or discharge. Consequently, when applying...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01775-07

    Original file (01775-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    01775-0712 February 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 31 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...

  • 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...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00016

    Original file (PD2009-00016.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The CI was referred to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), determined unfit for continued military service and separated at 20% disability using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Naval and Department of Defense regulations. Unfitting ConditionsCodeRatingDateConditionCodeRatingExamEffective Left Humerus Supracondylar Fracture5299-520220%20030326Left (Non-Dominant) Grade 2 Open Distal Humerus Fracture, Status Post Open Reduction and Internal...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03863-06

    Original file (03863-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEXWASHINGTON DC 20370-5100JREDocket No. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03820-10

    Original file (03820-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 February 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05392-10

    Original file (05392-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 March 2011. Your receipt of disability compensation from the VA is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record. 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 | CY2002 | 05183-99

    Original file (05183-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    __-.. ._ ’ , MSC, USN, dtd 21 Ott 98 found.the member fit for duty on - PEB Case File - Additional Medical Evidence - Service - Memo from - PRT Folder A medical board was held at on 14 January 1998 with diagnoses of: Chronic Low Back Pain (7242) 1. question is not whether the member's performance is "sub-optimal", but rather whether her performance meets required Navy standards. evaluations up through July 1997, which reflect that the member has always performed at or above standard.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09371-07

    Original file (09371-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 August 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 | CY2004 | 03702-04

    Original file (03702-04.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 March 2005. The Board rejected your contention to the effect that a civilian medical record demonstrates that you were not intoxicated when you caused an automobile accident on 7 November 1992. 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.