Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09886-09
Original file (09886-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

: JRE
Docket No. 09886-09
18 June 2010

 

fix . _
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 segsion, considered your application on 17 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. In
this regard, the Board found that you failed to demonstrate that your
congenital bicuspid valve and related, asymptomatic, aortic
insufficiency rendered you unfit for duty on 31 August 1993, when
you were released from active duty and transferred to the Fleet
Reserve. The Board also noted that it has no authority to direct the
Department of Veterans Affairs to grant your request for service
connection for aortic insufficiency or any other condition.
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,

Lo Yas

W. DEAN

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 02146-04

    Original file (02146-04.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board reconsider of your application, together with all material submitted insupport t thereof, your naval record arid applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The Board rejected the recent determination of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that the heart condition was incurred during your service in the Navy, as that determination is not well reasoned or substantiated by the evidence of record. Consequently, when applying for a correction...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00800-01

    Original file (00800-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Notwithstanding the clinical recommendation for aortic valve in the absence of any contemporary ejection fraction or the disability rating options are still limited to 30% or Subj: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE CASE OF In summary, 3. functional impairment. time the Petitioner's TDRL status was...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03121-02

    Original file (03121-02.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 October 2002. 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 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 | 12430-09

    Original file (12430-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 June 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 28 January 2010 with enclosures, a copy of which is attached, and your letter dated 19 May 2010 with enclosures. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09934-09

    Original file (09934-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 June 2010. 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 | 06993-09

    Original file (06993-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 May 2010. 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 | 10472-09

    Original file (10472-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 June 2010. The Board considered both the A/O and your response in deciding your case. 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 | 06029-10

    Original file (06029-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 June 2010. 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 | 09215-09

    Original file (09215-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    JA three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 June 2010. 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 | 01037-10

    Original file (01037-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 November 2010. 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. You were discharged in accordance with your request on 15 November 2001.