Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02636-09
Original file (02636-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX JRE

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 Docket No. 02636-09
16 July 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. You requested that the Board order a formal
physical evaluation board (PEB) and that you be retired by reason
of physical disability effective 7 March 2006.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 July
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. In addition, the
Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by Director,
Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards (SECNAVCORB) dated
1 July 2009 and 6 January 2010. A copy of each opinion is attached.
The Director, SECNAVCORB is an official of the Department of the Navy
who has cognizance over the Naval Disability Evaluation Systemand
takes final action for the Secretary of the Navy in certain matters
pertaining to physical disability separation and retirement of naval
service members. The advisory opinions were prepared with the
assistance of his staff.

 

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
connection with the failure of the Department of the Navy to retire
you by reason of physical disability. In this connection, the Board
substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory
opinions.
The Board noted that the regulatory provisions cited by your counsel
pertain to periods of light duty, which may be ordered by a physician,
rather than limited duty, which can be ordered only by a medical
board. The available records do not demonstrate that the cited
regulatory provisions were violated in your case. Available records
show that you were placed on light duty during January 2006, and that
on 8 September 2006 a physician recommended that you be placed in
a light duty status for thirty days; however, the medical record entry
which contains that recommendation indicates that you were returned
to full duty on that date. The entry in the Marine Corps electronic
record system concerning your duty status is not substantiated by
medical record entries, and was of no probative value to the Board.

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,

 
 
   

W. DEAN PFH
Executive Di

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07646-10

    Original file (07646-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board may deny an application in executive session if it determines that the evidence of record fails to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. If the petitioner’s fitness is considered questionable by the Board or the author(s) of the medical advisory opinion, the Board or its staff will in most cases seek an advisory opinion from the Director, SECNAVCORB, on the issue of the petitioner’s fitness for duty at the time of his separation or release from active...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01089-08

    Original file (01089-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 December 2008. 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 | 11128-09

    Original file (11128-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    , The Board concluded that in view of your failure to disclose your pre-service history of posttraumatic stress disorder when you applied for enlistment, it would not be in the interest of justice to correct your record to show that you were retired by reason of physical disability due to posttraumatic stress disorder. In the Board’s opinion, the provisions of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, part 4.129 (38CFR4.129) required VA rating officials to apply a convalescent rating, rather...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12256-09

    Original file (12256-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected to show that he received disability ratings for conditions of his right and left hands, and that he be permanently retired by reason of physical disability. b. Enclosure (1) was filed in a timely manner, c. In correspondence attached as enclosure (2), the Director, Secretary of Navy Council of Review Boards...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06637-06

    Original file (06637-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 July 2007. In addition, the Board considered the letter from the Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Branch, Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards (SECNAVCORB), dated 25 June 2006, which advised you of the basis for the administrative denial of your request for CRSC. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00506-08

    Original file (00506-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 22 June 2007, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) granted his request for service connection for a condition of his right shoulder which it rated at 10% from 4 January 2006. d. On 10 September 2007, the Chief, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery (BUMED) advised the Commanding General, Marine Reserve Forces, that Petitioner was not physically qualified for retention in the USMCR due to lupus. In the Director’s opinion, the available evidence is insufficient to warrant recommending...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06513-06

    Original file (06513-06.rtf) 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.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 in order for a service member to be retired by reason of physical disability,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08081-07

    Original file (08081-07.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 December 2008. 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 | CY2012 | 20120008770

    Original file (20120008770.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The MEB proceedings do not show a recommendation or any other entries by Army officials; f. a DA Form 199 (PEB Proceedings) that shows a PEB convened on 17 April 2007 to evaluate the applicant's type II diabetes, well controlled on oral agents: (1) the board found the applicant fit for duty and returned him to duty, and (2) the applicant concurred with the PEB findings and recommendations on 19 April 2007; g. a VA Rating Decision, dated 3 May 2008, that shows the following decisions were...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10491-07

    Original file (10491-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 JRE Docket No. 10491-07 21 November 2008 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: FORMER