DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
5 Docket No. 11694-09
8 January 2010 ~
This is in referénce 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 7 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. In this regard, it found that you underwent
a pre-separation physical examination on 18 November 1999 and
disclosed a history of numerous medical conditions and
complaints, each of which was evaluated by the physician who
conducted the examination. All of the conditions and complaints
were Classified as “NCD”, i.e., not considered disqualifying for
service or separation. You were voluntarily discharged on 22
November 1999 and assigned a reentry code of RE-R1, to indicate
that you were qualified for further service and recommended for
preferred reenlistment.
The Board concluded that your receipt of disability compensation
from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for several
conditions is not probative of the existence of error or
injustice in your naval record because the VA assigns such
ratings without regard to the issue of fitness for military
service. As you have not demonstrated that you were unfit for
duty at the time of your discharge, the Board was unable to
recommend 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,
Li Nom Sau
W. DEAN PFA FRRR
Executive Dyr or
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08005-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 January 2010. On 2 June 1999, a formal hearing panel of the PEB considered your case and assigned you a combined disability rating of 10% for conditions of your lumbar and cervical spine. 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 | CY2002 | 02290-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 February 2002. Unlike the VA, the military departments are permitted to assign disability ratings only in those cases where the service member has been found unfit for duty. 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 | CY2001 | 02336-00
You were evaluated by a Navy psychiatrist on 11 March 1997, and reported that you felt the Paxil was helping and that you were feeling much better. The increase was based on a report of treatment dated 30 November 1998, and a VA rating examination conducted on 4 May 1999, which indicated your depressive symptoms had increased in severity The Board noted that in order to qualify for disability separation or retirement from the Armed Forces, a service member must be found unfit to perform the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01979-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 October 2002. The fact that the VA has awarded you substantial disability rating is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record because the VA assigns ratings without regard to the issue of fitness for military duty, and it may raise, lower, or assign ratings throughout a veteran ’s life time. Consequently, when applying for a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06432-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 April 2002. Notwithstanding those findings, the VA awarded you a 60% rating under VA cod 5293, effective from 17 July 1999, for pronounced intervertebral disc disease, which is the highest permitted rating for that condition. 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 | 05589-09
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted o£ 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 you were unfit for duty on 1 July 1995 because of the back condition and/or the diabetes mellitus, and that you should have received a combined disability rating from the Department of the Navy of 30% or higher, the Board was unable to recommend corrective...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07852-05
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 initially enlisted in the Navy on 9 November 1984. Although you received...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01197-10
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. Consequently, when Poiying for a correction ‘of an official naval record, the burden ee on the applicantito demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01060-01
A three-niember panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 November 2001. 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 | CY2002 | 03096-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 October 2002. February 1999, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) made preliminary findings that you were unfit for duty because of the depressive disorder, which it rated at 10% disabling. 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.