DEPARTMENT -OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No. 07310-08
7 October 2009
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 17 September 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 ali 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 served on active duty in the Navy from
14 March 1988 to 10 March 1995. Although you suffered from a
number of medical conditions during your period of service, you
underwent extensive medical evaluation prior to separation. It
was ultimately determined that a medical board was not necessary
in your case, and that you were physically qualified for
separation. On 13 Noverber 1995, the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) awarded you disability ratings of 10% for
labyrinthitis with mild tinnitus and occasional vertigo, and 0%
for three other conditions.
The fact that the VA awarded you a combined rating of 10% for
four conditions effective the day following your release from
active duty is not probative of the existence of error or
injustice in your naval record. The VA assigned those ratings
without regard to the issue of your fitness to perform military
duty. The military departments, unlike the VA, may assign
disability ratings only in those cases where the service member
has been found unfit to reasonably perform the duties of his
office, grade, rank or rating by reason of physical disability.
As you have not demonstrated that you were unfit for duty on 10
March 1995, the Board was 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,
\ oes
W. DEAN PFE
Executive Dil ir
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00651-09
The VA st for service connection for three other ugh you had numerous minor conditions that did jidual compensable ratings, VA rating officials he combination of those minimal disabilities ed you with an unspecified “employment arranted a combined overall rating of 10%. Ther as increased to 40% effective 2 December 1998, ive 30 August 2006. compensable disability rating on 9 March 1995 ate the existence of error or injustice in your this regard, the Board noted that the VA ing without...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07721-09
You had no military status during the period from 26 June 1979 to 19 December 1988. , The Board considered your application and all pertinent records in accordance with the provisions of SECNAV Instruction 5420.193, enclosure (1), Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (codified at 32 CFR 723), paragraph 3e. During the 1979-1989 period, you received treatment from VA health care providers for multiple conditions such as hip, back and knee pain, chronic recurrent foot pain,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07874-08
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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04901-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 March 2011. Your receipt of disability ratings from the VA is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record because the VA assigned those ratings without regard to the issue of your fitness for naval service as of 28 October 2009. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05589-09
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted o£ 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 were unfit for duty on 1 July 1995 because of the back condition and/or the diabetes mellitus, and that you should have received a combined disability rating from the Department of the Navy of 30% or higher, the Board was unable to recommend corrective...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04018-08
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 | CY2005 | 05838-05
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 August 2006. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) denied your request for service connection for a back condition on 26 November 1996 and 18 February 2000, and for depression anda back condition on 23 October 2001. 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 | CY2006 | 03220-06
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 entered on active duty on 3 January 1993. You submitted a request for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | NC9807005
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 found that on 26 September 1995, the Record Review Panel (RRP) of the Physical Evaluation Board made preliminary findings that you were unfit for duty because of obsessive-compulsive disorder, rated at 10%. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08685-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 June 2011. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that you are entitled to combined disability rating of 30% or higher for the ear canal tumor and hearing loss, or that you suffered from any other conditions that rendered your unfit for duty at the time of your discharge, the Board was unable to recommend favorable action on your request. Consequently,...