DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5190 |
JRE
Docket No. 03589-09
3 August 2009
This igs 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 30 July 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 on 10 January i977 the Physical Evaluation
Board (PEB) found you unfit for duty due to an intracranial
arachnoid cyst and residuals of its surgical removal from your
cranium, which it rated at 100% disabling. As there is no
indication in the available records that residuals of the knee
surgery you underwent in 1971 was disabling in 1977, it was not
considered by the PEB, and there is no basis for the Board to
add that condition to your disability evaluation proceedings.
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,
Wood
W. DEAN PFEIF
Executive °
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 12082-08
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 the absence of evidence which demonstrates that your disability was aggravated by your service, the Board 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03762-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 June 2009. The medical board recommended that your case be considered by the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). 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 | CY2008 | 04877-08
| A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, gitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 April 2009. The Board did not accept your contention to the effect that your condition was misdiagnosed as a right medial meniscus tear and, consequently, that your discharge was based on a condition that did not exist. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10102-06
The Board found that on 23 October 1985, the Central Physical Evaluation Board (CPEB) made preliminary findings that you were unfit for duty because of the residuals of injuries to the cervical spine that you sustained on 8 December 1984 in a motor vehicle accident, and that the disabilities were not ratable because you were injured as a result of your own misconduct. VA rating official denied your request, based on their determination that your disabilities were residual to the injuries...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05991-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 February 2003. After reviewing the report of that examination on 14 April 2000, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) made preliminary findings that you were unfit for duty because of residuals of your cancer, which it rated at 0%. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05464-06
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 were evaluated by the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) on 18 January 2006...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02335-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 June 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10963-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, Sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 September 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 | CY2002 | 09278-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 November 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 2001, and you were discharged by reason of physical disability on 1 February lo%, and recommended that you be discharged by reason of You accepted the findings of the PEB The Board concluded that in view of your...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05305-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 March 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...