DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No. 91287-09
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 li 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. In this regard, the Board was not persuaded
that you were suffering from Lyme disease when released from
active duty in 1977 or when discharged from the Marine Corps on
25 September 1984, or that you were unfit to reasonably perform
the duties of your rank by reason of physical disability that
was incurred in or aggravated by your naval service. The fact
that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded you a
disability rating Lyme disease effective 8 March 2006 is not
probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval
record, because the VA made that award without regard to the
issue of your fitness for duty more than twenty years earlier.
In addition, the Board was unable to accept the unsupported
determination of VA rating officials that the Lyme disease was
“as least as likely as not” the result of an undiagnosed illness
from which you suffered in 1977.
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,
ees
Executive \Diractor
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084746C070212
By memorandum dated 6 March 1998, the U. S. Army Physical Evaluation Board, Walter Reed Army Medical Center returned the applicant's case for two doctors to come to a consensus on the diagnosis. It was noted that the result of the first Lyme titre done soon after the tick bite was not available in her records. The Board also notes the applicant's primary argument in her appeals against the findings of the PEBs that she suffered from Lyme Disease and that fibromyalgia was caused by her...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03096973C070212
Ultimately, the applicant notes that he was released from the United States Army Reserve for unfitness, but could not be retired because the disease occurred while he was on active duty. Neither the applicant’s service medical record nor his Official Military Personnel File was available to the Board. He has presented no evidence that his request for reclassification or his request for separation under the VSI program was “forced” on him because of his medical conditions.
The fact that he was diagnosed by the DVA for Lyme disease in 1996 (some 40-plus years following his discharge) is irrelevant because his records show he was fit to perform his military duties right up until the time of his involuntary discharge. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant contends his disease has been continuously active since contraction in...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04018-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 March 2009. The Board concluded that your receipt of substantial disability ratings from the VA effective the day after you were discharged from the Navy is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your Navy record. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01060-01
A three-niember panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 November 2001. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014695
The evidence of record shows that the applicant was diagnosed with "moderately severe" atrophy of upper and lower leg muscles with a 40 percent disability rating and an overall disability rating of 50 percent. The 40 percent disability rating he received is consistent with the medical evidence, the formal PEB findings, and the VASRD. Additionally, the applicant offers the fact that he was awarded a 60 percent disability percentage rating from the VA as proof that he should have received...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01268-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 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 | 05882-09
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001839C070206
On 21 August 1996, an informal PEB determined the applicant was unfit for duty because of his delusional disorder (code 9208 (paranoid disorders) under the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD)) and placed him on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) with a 30 percent disability rating. The Court noted that the record established that the applicant met the criteria for a 50 percent disability rating for his mental disorder and that his 30 percent rating was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001839C070206
On 21 August 1996, an informal PEB determined the applicant was unfit for duty because of his delusional disorder (code 9208 (paranoid disorders) under the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD)) and placed him on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) with a 30 percent disability rating. The Court noted that the record established that the applicant met the criteria for a 50 percent disability rating for his mental disorder and that his 30 percent rating was...