Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09195-09
Original file (09195-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX JRE

WASHINGTON DC 20376-5100 Docket No. 09295-0909
7 June 2010

 

 

   

cn

This is in referenge 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 3 June
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.

You served on active duty in the Marine Corps from 3 February to 12
March 1993, when you were discharged because of degenerative joint
Gisease of the right shoulder which existed prior to your enlistment
and was not aggravated by your service. On-11 August 2005, the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded you a disability rating
of 20% for your shoulder condition, based on the finding that the
condition “permanently worsened” as a result of your one month and
ten days of naval service.

You were discharged from the Navy without entitlement to disability
benefits because Navy officials determined that your preexisting
Shoulder condition was not aggravated by your service, i.e.,
increased in severity beyond normal progression during your period
of service, there is no basis for granting your request for disability
separation or retirement. 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,

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00880-00

    Original file (00880-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Sincerely, W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Director -- Enclosure i RATIONALE ON 13 SEPTEMBER 1996, A MEDICAL BOARD WAS CONVENED AT THE NAVAL HOSPITAL, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA IN THE CASE OF THIS 28 YEAR OLD MEMBER WITH THE FOLLOWING DIAGNOSES: (1) CHRONIC INSTABILITY LEFT SHOULDER, 71881 (2) CHRONIC MECHANICAL LOW BACK PAIN, 7242 (3) CHRONIC DEGENERATIVE ARTHRITIS LEFT KNEE, 71598 (4) SUBLUXATION SPONTANEOUS MANDIBLE, 8300 -- THE RECORD REVIEW PANEL OF THE PHYSICAL ON 15 JANUARY...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08454-10

    Original file (08454-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 June 2011. 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 for duty at the time of your transfer to the Fleet Reserve. Consequently, when applying for a correction of: an official naval record, the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04586-10

    Original file (04586-10.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. The VA assigns disability ratings without regard to the issue of the veteran’s fitness for military duty, whereas the military departments rate only those conditions that render a service member unfit for duty. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...

  • 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 | CY2009 | 11122-09

    Original file (11122-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ‘A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 April 2010. The BMS determined that you were unfit for duty by reason of bilateral hallux valgus, which was not incurred in or aggravated by your brief period of active duty service, and recommended that you be discharged without entitlement to disability benefits. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06361-10

    Original file (06361-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 mp 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 | CY2001 | 08366-00

    Original file (08366-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    TO SUPPORT HIS REQUEST THE MEMBER PRESENTED TESTIMONY AND COPIES OF HIS V.A. THE RECORD DOCUMENTS THAT THE MEMBER HAD CHRONIC LEFT SHOULDER KNEE, AND FOOT PAIN THAT LIMITED HIS ACTIVITIES DUE TO THE ABOVE DIAGNOSES. THE TDRL EVALUATION INDICATES THAT SINCE PLACEMENT ON THE TDRL THE MEMBER HAS UNDERGONE A LEFT ROTATOR CUFF REPAIR IN OCTOBER 1998 BUT CONTINUES TO HAVE CHRONIC SHOULDER PAIN.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04280-10

    Original file (04280-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1” February 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 | CY2009 | 09447-09

    Original file (09447-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 June 2010. The fact that the VA granted you a disability rating approximately twenty years after you were discharged from the Navy is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record. 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 | 04424-00

    Original file (04424-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 April 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. condition was incurred in or aggravated by your service, or that your discharge was otherwise erroneous, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of...