Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04541-09
Original file (04541-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY.

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE

Docket No. 04541-0939
4 February 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 28 January 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.

On 23 June 2007, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) made
preliminary findings that you were unfit for duty because of a
knee condition that was ratable at 10% disabling. You accepted
those findings on 2 August 2007 and waived your right to a
formal hearing before the PEB. You were discharged with .
entitlement to disability severance pay on 7 September 2007.

Your receipt of disability ratings from the Department of.
Veterans Affairs (VA} for conditions not rated by the PEB is not
considered probative of the existence of error or injustice in
your naval record. In this regard, the Board noted that the VA
assigns disability ratings without regard to the issue of the
veteran’s fitness for military duty at the time of his
separation. As you have not demonstrated that the PEB should
have rated your knee condition at 30% or higher, or that you
suffered from any other unfitting conditions prior to 7
September 2007, the Board was unable to recommend any 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,

\aYued

W. DEAN PFE
Executive Di 7r

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | 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 | CY2012 | NR7104 12

    Original file (NR7104 12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your receipt of disability ratings from the VA for conditions not rated by the PEB is not probative of error or injustice in your naval record because the VA assigns disability ratings without regard to the issue of fitness for military service. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that you were entitled to a higher disability rating from the PEB for your knee condition or that you suffered from any other conditions that should have been rated by the PEB, the Board was unable to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05882-09

    Original file (05882-09.pdf) 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. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06051-08

    Original file (06051-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 July 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 material error or injustice.

  • 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 | CY2010 | 05305-10

    Original file (05305-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05464-06

    Original file (05464-06.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 you were evaluated by the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) on 18 January 2006...

  • 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 | CY2009 | 06432-09

    Original file (06432-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 September 2010. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...