DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 . .
JRE
Docket No. 00745-09
9 July 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. You requested that your
“completed years of service be changed from 2 years to 3 years”,
so that you will be entitled to a disability rating of 80%
rather than 70%.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 25 June 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 enlisted in the Navy Reserve on 23
December 1964, and served on active duty from 10 February 1966
to 30 September 1967, when you were transferred to the Temporary
Disability Retire List (TDRL) with a combined disability rating
of 80% for residuals of wounds you sustained in combat in
Vietnam. Your DD Form 214 indicates that you completed three
years of service for “the percentage multiple”. The Veterans
Administration awarded you a 60% rating effective 1 October
1967. You were permanently retired by reason of physical
disability effective 1 August 1971, with a combined disability
rating of 70%.
The Board found that your final disability rating was based on
an assessment of the level of impairment caused by your
disabilities, rather than on the number of years of creditable
service you completed. As your condition was assessed as 70%
disabling, you were entitled to retired pay equal to 70% of your
basic pay. The percentage rating was not based on the number of
years of service you were credited with completing.
Accordingly, and as you have not demonstrated that your
disabilities should have been rated at more than 70% disabling,
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,
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130017822
For his unfitting disabilities, the VA proposed a 50 percent combined rating as follows: * Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (claimed as shortness of breath) 30 percent * Degenerative disc disease, lumbar spine (claimed as back condition) 10 percent * Left shoulder strain with post-surgical pain (claimed as left shoulder condition) 10 percent * Cervicalgia with degenerative disc disease, cervical spine (also claimed as neck condition) 10 percent b. For his service-connected disabilities, the VA...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05771-08
You contend that you are statutorily entitled to a disability rating of 50% 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 ali 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,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05545-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 August 2001. As the Board was not persuaded that the disability rating you were assigned by the Secretary of the Navy is erroneous or unjust, it 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...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00219
I would ask that you request from the Department of Veterans Affairs all rating decisions and accompanying medical information for the degenerative disc disease in my neck and low back as well as the rating decisions for the above listed conditions.” The CI also submitted a letter along with his application to the Physical Disability Board of Review (PDBR) stating the Air Force Physical Evaluation Board had rated his conditions based on incapacitating episodes but that the VA had used the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070005987l
The PEB concluded that the applicant was found medically unfit for further military service under the provisions of paragraph 3-13d(2b) of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) and granted him a combined rating of 60 percent disability. Hence, a 60 percent disability combined with a 20 percent disability results in a combined rating of 68 percent. The combined rating for any combination of disabilities can be determined by first arranging the disabilities in their exact...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00566
This review was completed and the initial rating was corrected to a 70% rating for 9211 Schizoaffective Disorder, Depressed Type. These records support a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, depressed type (as opposed to mood disorder NOS) as well as either personality disorder or traits. As discussed above, PEB rated the CI’s mental health condition IAW with DoDI 1332.39 which was in effect at the time the CI separated from service and the condition was adjudicated independently of that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09422-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Coxrection of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 July 2009. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that you were unfit to reasonably perform your duties at the time of your release from active duty, the Board was unable to recommend 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03707
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03707 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His retired pay be calculated under the Final Basic Pay retirement plan rather than the High-36 retirement pay plan and his debt be removed. The complete DFAS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial, stating, in part, there is...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01963
The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the VASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. The Board next considered that at the time of separation, although the CI’s asthma was relatively well controlled,treatment notes in the STR, the MEB and C&P exams consistently documented use of the anti-inflammatory inhaler and oral bronchodilator medications, with...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00427
The CI was therefore medically separated with a 10% disability rating. Asthma Condition . Given the consistent record of the CI’s being prescribed and using daily medication, the CI meets the 30% criteria of “daily inhalational or oral bronchodilator therapy, or; inhalational anti-inflammatory medication.” All evidence considered, the Board recommends coding 6602 at 30% as the fair, permanent separation rating for Asthma in this case.