DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 5
2 NAVY ANNEX .
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 | Docket No. 11371-08
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 all material submitted in
support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes,
‘xegulations 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 26
February 1987 and transferred to the Temporary Disability
Retired List with a disability rating of 30%. On 5 April 1990
the Records Review Panel of the Physical Evaluation, Board (PEB)
made preliminary findings that you were unfit for duty due to
Chron’s colitis and probable ileitis, which it rated at 10%.
You accepted those findings on 30 May 1990, and were discharged
with entitlement to disability severance pay. The Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) rated your condition at 10% from 27
February 1987 to 28 February 1990, 0% from | March 1990 to 14
February 2007, and 30% effective 15 February 2007.
~
The Board concluded that you failed to demonstrate that your
disability was ratable at or above 30% disabling when you were
discharged from the Navy in 1990. 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. Although the VA may raise or lower disability ratings
throughout a veteran's lifetime, ratings assigned by the
military departments are fixed as of the date of separation or
permanent retirement, absent a showing or material error or
injustice and favorable action by the Board. As you have not
demonstrated that the rating you were assigned by the PEB in.
1990 is erroneous or unjust, 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,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03762-09
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 | 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 | CY2010 | 03536-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 February 2011. The Board found that your receipt of disability ratings from the VA is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your Marine Corps record, because the VA assigned those ratings without regard to the issue of your fitness for military duty on 27 May 2007. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04787-10
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...
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 | CY2009 | 04541-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 January 2010. 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 | 01495-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 January 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 | CY2010 | 00466-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, ‘sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 February 2011. Its assignment in your case does not imply that you were released from jactive duty for medical reasons or that you were separated or retired ‘by reason of physical disability. 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 | 03527-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 July 2009. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that your disability was ratable at or above 30% disabling as of 12 May 2006, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04422-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 March 2011. You were discharged in accordance with the approved findings of the PEB on 31 March 2007. 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.