Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06675-08
Original file (06675-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

JRE
Docket No. 06675-08
2 April 2009

 

This is in reference to your request for further consideration
of 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 26 March 2009. 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 regard, the Board found that the
evidence you submitted concerning the diagnosis of fibromyalgia
is not new material evidence. The Physical Evaluation Board
(PEB) considered that diagnosis and, as indicated in the revised
findings that were sent to you on or about 21 June 2001,
classified it as a category II condition that was not separately

ratable. The Board was not persuaded that the PEB should have
rated the fibromyalgia.

In view of the foregoing, and as you have not demonstrated that
you were entitled to a combined disability rating of 30% or
higher from the Department of the Navy, 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,

\ ak

W. DEAN PF
Executive Di r

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04882-02

    Original file (04882-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    member appears requesting ratings for three diagnoses: migraines, medical board, the member's medical record indicates that she has been worked up and extensively evaluated for pain complaints referable to every organ system in the body. The medical board notes an MRI of the lumbosacral area, L5-Sl with no significant effect on the The physical examination in the medical board notes that With regard to the member's request for a rating on lumbosacral strain, the member wished to have this...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02099-06

    Original file (02099-06.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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.The Board found that on 23 April 2004, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) made preliminary...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09601-07

    Original file (09601-07.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 were released from active duty on 23 April 1997 and transferred to the...

  • 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 | 08400-07

    Original file (08400-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval ‘Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 July 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 | CY2009 | 03762-09

    Original file (03762-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 June 2009. The medical board recommended that your case be considered by the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). 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 | 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 | CY2008 | 04018-08

    Original file (04018-08.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. The Board concluded that your receipt of substantial disability ratings from the VA effective the day after you were discharged from the Navy is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your Navy record. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05634-08

    Original file (05634-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AR 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 | CY2008 | 02676-08

    Original file (02676-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 June 2009. In addition, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) that considered your case on 18 August 2005 found you fit 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.