Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01268-09
Original file (01268-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

JRE
Docket No. 01268-09
22 March 2010 ‘

 

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 11 March 2010. 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.

You served on active duty in the Navy from 27 April 2004 to 2?
March 2006, when you were discharged for the convenience of the
government. On 19 September 2008, the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) awarded you disability ratings of 10% for cervical
dise disease, carpal tunnel syndrome and plantar fasciitis with

heel spur.

Your receipt of disability compensation from the VA is not
probative of error or injustice in your naval record, because
the VA awarded those ratings without regard to the issue of your
fitness for military duty. As you have not demonstrated that
you were unfit to reasonably perform the duties of your rank by
reason of physical disability at the time of your discharge, 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,

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05882-09

    Original file (05882-09.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, regulations and policies. As you have not demonstrated that any of the additional conditions rated by the VA rendered you unfit to reasonably perform your Military duties, and that you were entitled to a combined rating from the Department of the Navy of 30% or higher, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00751-09

    Original file (00751-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 March 2010. Your receipt of disability rating from the VA is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record, because the VA awarded those ratings without regard to the issue of your fitness for military duty as of the date of your release from active duty. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01287-09

    Original file (01287-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on li March 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 | CY2010 | 04094-10

    Original file (04094-10.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. 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. The VA rating officials who made that award found no objective evidence in your naval health record that was pertinent to your claim, and they...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04734-09

    Original file (04734-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 March 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 | CY2010 | 00797-10

    Original file (00797-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 March 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 | CY2009 | 01137-09

    Original file (01137-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 March 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 | CY2009 | 04587-09

    Original file (04587-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 March 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 | CY2010 | 05392-10

    Original file (05392-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 March 2011. Your receipt of disability compensation from the VA is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record. 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 | CY2009 | 06476-09

    Original file (06476-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 September 2010. The fact that the VA assigned a disability rating that is higher than the rating assigned by the Department of the Navy is insufficient to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice in your naval record, especially since the basis for the VA rating is unclear In the absence of evidence which establishes that you were entitled to a rating of...