Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03762-09
Original file (03762-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
‘ 2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 .
JRE

Docket No. 03762-0939
15 June 2009

 

 

ben iia

This is in. reference to your application for correction of your
maval 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 June 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 were evaluated by a medical board on 4
April 2006 and given a diagnosis of status/post first and second
degree burns of your hands. The medical board recommended that
your case be considered by the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).
The PEB found you fit for duty on 28 September 2006, and you
accepted that finding on 16 October 2006. On 23 April 2007, you
were discharged for the convenience of the government by reason
of a “condition not a disability”.

On 5 January 2008, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
awarded you disability ratings of 50% for obstructive sleep
apnea, 10% and for residuals of electrical shock left hand and
forearm, and 30% for the right arm, separate 10% ratings for
lumbosacral strain and a specific phobia, and 0% for two other
conditions. The ratings were effective from 24 April 2007.

The Board was not persuaded that you were unfit for duty by
reason of physical disability on the date of your discharge, as
your symptoms were minimal and did not preclude you from
reasonably performing your duties. In addition, you accepted
the finding of fitness that was made by the PEB. The fact that
the VA awarded you substantial disability ratings effective the
day following your discharge is not probative of the existence
of error or injustice in your naval record because those rating
were assigned without regard to the issue of your fitness for
Military duty. 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,

Ree ROS eS —

Fern_W. DEAN P
Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09521-08

    Original file (09521-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 July 2009. Your receipt of disability ratings from the VA for numerous conditions that were not evaluated or rated by the PEB is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record because the VA assigned those ratings without regard to the issue of your fitness for military duty, and you have not demonstrated that any of those conditions...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00602-09

    Original file (00602-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 November 2009. The MEB established final diagnoses of metatarsalgia and gastroc equinus and recommended that your case be reviewed by the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). The Board concluded that your receipt of disability ratings from the VA for eight conditions that were not rated by the PEB is not considered probative of the existence of error or...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05692-08

    Original file (05692-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navai Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 June 2009. As noted above, you accepted the initial findings of the PEB, waived your right to a hearing, and acknowledged that you would be separated or retired by reason of physical disability. 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 | CY2010 | 04422-10

    Original file (04422-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 March 2011. You were discharged in accordance with the approved findings of the PEB on 31 March 2007. 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 | CY2007 | 06790-07

    Original file (06790-07.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 you enlisted in the Navy on 1 October 2002. The VA awarded the 10% rating...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04043-07

    Original file (04043-07.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.On 6 November 2006, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) made preliminary findings that you were fit...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01495-08

    Original file (01495-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 January 2009. 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 | 03536-10

    Original file (03536-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 February 2011. The Board found that your receipt of disability ratings from the VA is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your Marine Corps record, because the VA assigned those ratings without regard to the issue of your fitness for military duty on 27 May 2007. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11951-09

    Original file (11951-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on.14 January 2010. The Board concluded that your receipt of a VA disability rating for migraine headaches 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 the existence of probable material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04772-10

    Original file (04772-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 April 2011. The Board did not accept your unsubstantiated contention to the effect that you should have received a disability rating of 30% or higher for syncope, or that you were otherwise entitled to retirement by reason of physical disability, vice separation with entitlement to severance pay. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval...