Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10151-08
Original file (10151-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT GF THE NAVY

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

JRE .
Docket No. 10151-08
1i May 2009.

 

 

 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursvant 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 7 May 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.

The Board found that you were discharged from the Navy by reason
of physical disability on 21 October 1988, due to diabetes
mellitus which was rated at 20% disabling. The Veterans
Administration (VA) rated that condition at 20% from 22 October
1988 to S$ dune 2000, when the rating was increased to 40%. The
rating was increaged due to the increased severity of the
condition which occurred during the ten-plus years following
your discharge from the Navy.
The Board noted that although the VA may raise or lower ratings
at any time to reflect changes in the severity rated conditions,
ratings assigned by the military department are fixed as of the
date of discharge. As you have not demonstrated that you were
entitled to a rating in excess of 20% as of 21 October 1988, the
Board was unable to recommend any 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,

ek ». A ene

ROBERT D> ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06233-10

    Original file (06233-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 April 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 | 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 | CY2009 | 04071-09

    Original file (04071-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    , A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 September 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05308-06

    Original file (05308-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 JRE Docket No. 05308-06 16 July 2007 Dear

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09791-07

    Original file (09791-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 September 2008. In addition, the VA may amend ratings at any time it determines there has been a significant improvement or worsening of a rated condition, and it may add ratings for new conditions that are considered secondary to a rated condition, as in your case, where you received ratings for bilateral hip conditions more than eight years after you were...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04265-00

    Original file (04265-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 June 2001. On 14 November 1988, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) advised you that it had rated your back condition at 20%, and denied service connection for a psychiatric disorder. 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 | CY2008 | 12224-08

    Original file (12224-08.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. The fact that you were awarded a combined VA disability rating of 30% effective 21 August 2000 is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record, because that rating was based on an assessment of the severity of your disabilities more than ten years after you were discharged from the Navy. Consequently, when applying for a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07721-09

    Original file (07721-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 11371-08

    Original file (11371-08.pdf) 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, ‘xegulations and policies. The fact that the VA recently increased your disability rating to 30% is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record, because that rating was assigned because your condition had become more severe. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04787-10

    Original file (04787-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 February 2011. As there is no indication in the available records that you were unfit for duty on 30 July 2009 due to the effects of any of the additional conditions rated by the VA, the Board was tunable to recommend favorable action in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...