DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No. 08555-07
12 December 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 4 December 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 findings and revised rationale of the hearing
panel of the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) that considered
your case on 10 May 2005. A copy of the rationale is attached.
The Board noted that you accepted the findings of the PEB on 25
October 2005, and expressly declined the opportunity for another
hearing before the PEB. The Board concluded that the disability
ratings you received from Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
effective 16 November 2005 and 13 December 2006 are not
probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval
record, In this regard, the Board found that those ratings were
based in large part on the results of psychiatric evaluations
you underwent on 9 August and 13 December 2006, respectively,
rather than an assessment of your condition as of 15 November
2005, when you were discharged from the Marine Corps. The Board
noted that although the VA may assign or modify disability
ratings at any time, as warranted by changes in the nature or
severity of rated conditions, rating determinations made the
military departments are fixed as of the date of a service
member’s separation or permanent retirement. As you have not
demonstrated that you were entitled to a disability of 30% or
higher from the Department of the Navy on 15 November 2005, 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,
\a \
W. DEAN PF
Executive Diteétor
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00602-09
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 | CY2007 | 04043-07
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.On 6 November 2006, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) made preliminary findings that you were fit...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06790-07
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 enlisted in the Navy on 1 October 2002. The VA awarded the 10% rating...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09521-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 July 2009. Your receipt of disability ratings from the VA for numerous conditions that were not evaluated or rated by the PEB 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 military duty, and you have not demonstrated that any of those conditions...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 05962-05
05962-05 23 October 2006This 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 inexecutive session, consideredyourapplicationon 19 October 2006. The Informal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), considered the case on 20 December 2004, and found the member unfit for continued naval service due to a physical disability...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02748-08
The Board found that your attorney appeared before a hearing panel of the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) on 13 June 1996, and requested that you be assigned separate disability ratings of 10% under Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) codes 5299-5276 and 5276-5003 for bilateral flat feet and a painful toe. The President, PEB, published the findings of the hearing panel on 1 July 1996, and corrected them to show that you were assigned ratings under codes 5299- 5279 and 5276-5003. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06051-08
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 material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03478-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 May 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, The Board found that on 28 January 2005, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) made preliminary findings that you were unfit for duty by reason of bilateral knee conditions, each of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04772-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 April 2011. The Board did not accept your unsubstantiated contention to the effect that you should have received a disability rating of 30% or higher for syncope, or that you were otherwise entitled to retirement by reason of physical disability, vice separation with entitlement to severance pay. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04706-07
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.On 12 November 2003, the Physical Evaluation Board made preliminary findings that you were unfit...