Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11793-08
Original file (11793-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX JRE
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

Docket No. 11793-08
26 January 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 15 January 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
although the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) may raise or
lower a veteran's disability ratings throughout his lifetime as
the severity of rated conditions changes, ratings assigned by
the military departments are fixed as of the date of separation
or permanent retirement. Accordingly, the recent increase in
your disability rating by the VA does not provide a basis for
the Navy to increase the rating you received in 1967.

In view of the foregoing, 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,
\Qaurhs
W. DEAN B R
Executive DineNtor

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07375-08

    Original file (07375-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 May 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 | 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 | CY2008 | 07874-08

    Original file (07874-08.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. 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 | 05180-10

    Original file (05180-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 June 2011. Your receipt of disability ratings from the VA for conditions not rated by the Department of the Navy 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 vis-a-vis those conditions. Consequently, when applying for a correction...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10067-08

    Original file (10067-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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 | 03527-08

    Original file (03527-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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 | CY2008 | 12280-08

    Original file (12280-08.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 November 2009. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that your condition was ratable at or above 30% disabling on the date of your discharge from the Navy, 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 12440-08

    Original file (12440-08.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. The Board concluded that your receipt of disability compensation from the VA for a depressive disorder is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record, because the VA assigned the disability rating more than thirty years after you were retired, and without regard to your condition as of the date of your retirement. Consequently,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10151-08

    Original file (10151-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 May 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 | 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...