Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05377-09
Original file (05377-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

JRE
Docket No. 05377-09
18 December 2009

t

 

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 17 December 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 honorably discharged from the Navy
Reserve on 29 February 1996 at the expiration of your
enlistment, and that you were recommended for reenlistment at
that time. Although you had received minor injuries in an
automobile accident while traveling to a period of inactive duty
training, for which you received a Notice of Eligibility for
Disability Benefits for the period of recovery from the acute
effect of the injuries. In addition, you were medically excused
from drills to undergo corrective surgery. There is no
indication in the available records that the residual effects of
the injuries rendered you unfit to reasonably perform the duties
of your rank at the time of your discharge.

The fact that the Department of Veterans Affairs initially
awarded you minimal disability ratings for the residual effects
of your minor injuries is not probative of the existence of
error or injustice in your naval record, because the ratings
were assigned without regard to the issue of your fitness for
military duty. The subsequent increases in the VA ratings, and
the assignment of ratings for additional conditions such as
reportedly painful scars on your face, were based on your
condition at the times the ratings were assigned, rather than at
the time of your discharge.

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,

\ad

W. DEAN P F
Executive Diredter

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07375-08

    Original file (07375-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 May 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 | 00290-10

    Original file (00290-10.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 October 2010. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that you were not physically qualified for release from active duty on 2 October 2008, or that you were unfit for duty by reason of physical disability on 27 May 2009, when you were discharged by reason of physical fitness assessment failure, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02771-09

    Original file (02771-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 May 2010. Your receipt of disability ratings from the VA 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. 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 | 02275-07

    Original file (02275-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    02275-0727 May 2008This 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 8 May 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,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 12224-08

    Original file (12224-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 June 2009. The fact that you were awarded a combined VA disability rating of 30% effective 21 August 2000 is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record, because that rating was based on an assessment of the severity of your disabilities more than ten years after you were discharged from the Navy. Consequently, when applying for a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08355-01

    Original file (08355-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In this regard, the E3oard noted that the VA assigns disability ratings without regard to the issue of fitness for military duty, whereas the military departments rate only those conditions which render a service member unfit for duty. The Board concluded that had the PEB had found your arthritis to be unfitting as of 1 October 1994, it is unlikely that you would have received a substantial rating for that condition, because substantial deductions would have been taken from the rating for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10102-06

    Original file (10102-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2007 | 10935-07

    Original file (10935-07.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 those additional conditions rendered you unfit to reasonably perform the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating by reason of physical disability, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in your case. Consequently, when applying...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04325-01

    Original file (04325-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 September 2001. Documentary material considered by the Board 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 08695-05

    Original file (08695-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    08695-05 6 November 2006This is in reference to your application for correction of your navalrecord 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, consideredyour application on 26 October 2006. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted insupport thereof, yournaval recordandapplicable statutes,...