DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX JRE
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 Docket No. 01359-0909
20 March 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 5 March 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 on 21 November
1983 and reenlisted on 2 October 1987. You underwent a pre-
separation physical examination on 14 July 1993 and were found
physically qualified for separation. You were discharged on 1
November 1993 by reason of completion of required service, and
assigned a reentry code of RE-1, to indicate that you were
eligible and recommended for reenlistment. You underwent a pre-
enlistment physical examination on 16 November 1993 and were
found qualified for enlistment. You completed a Standard Form
93, Report of Medical History, on that date in which you denied
having recurrent back pain. In addition, you did not report a
history of knee pain, and stated that you had “no back pain at
this time”. On 20 February 2002, the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) denied your request for service connection for
lumbosacral strain; however, on 23 February 2005, the VA granted
your request for service connection for degenerative joint
disease of the spine and residuals of a left knee sprain. The
VA rated each of those conditions at 10% effective 28 April
2004,
The fact that the VA granted your request for service connection
for two conditions many years after you were discharged from the
Navy is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in
your naval record, because the VA took that action without
regard to the issue of your fitness for military duty on 1
November 1993. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates
that you were unfit to reasonably perform the duties of your
office, grade, rank or rating by reason of physical disability
at the time of to 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,
Iya )
W. DEAN PFE
ector
Executive D
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04284-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 February 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. You were discharged on 28 November 1969 due to your failure to meet the minimum physical standards for enlistment due to a condition which existed...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04424-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 April 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. condition was incurred in or aggravated by your service, or that your discharge was otherwise erroneous, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07721-09
You had no military status during the period from 26 June 1979 to 19 December 1988. , The Board considered your application and all pertinent records in accordance with the provisions of SECNAV Instruction 5420.193, enclosure (1), Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (codified at 32 CFR 723), paragraph 3e. During the 1979-1989 period, you received treatment from VA health care providers for multiple conditions such as hip, back and knee pain, chronic recurrent foot pain,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06525-02
member had a history of hyperthyroidism which is The member appeared before the formal board requesting ratings for his low back pain, ankylosis. his patellofemoral syndrome, and hip These The member With reference to the member's hyperthyroidism, he testified this was diagnosed in March 1998. accident he had in 1997. medical record. The member appeared before the formal PEB case file, Remarkably, no where in the member's or even in his letter to the PEB dated hip ankylosis, appears the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07496-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 May 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. The combined rating was increased to 30% on 18 October 1996, and made effective from 10 August 1994. i The Board noted that in order to be entitled to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02290-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 February 2002. Unlike the VA, the military departments are permitted to assign disability ratings only in those cases where the service member has been found unfit for duty. 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.
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00123
The PEB adjudicated “left knee pain with grade II chondromalacia” condition as unfitting, rated 10%, with application of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) and possible application of the US Army Physical Disability Agency pain policy and DoDI 1332.39. Left Knee Condition . MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, US Army Physical Disability Agency
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04458-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 January 2011. As noted above, you were found fit for duty by the PEB, and you accepted that finding, which suggests that you felt that you were fit for duty at that time. 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 | CY2006 | 04601-06
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 on 19 February 2003. On 7 September 2005, you were...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00651-09
The VA st for service connection for three other ugh you had numerous minor conditions that did jidual compensable ratings, VA rating officials he combination of those minimal disabilities ed you with an unspecified “employment arranted a combined overall rating of 10%. Ther as increased to 40% effective 2 December 1998, ive 30 August 2006. compensable disability rating on 9 March 1995 ate the existence of error or injustice in your this regard, the Board noted that the VA ing without...