DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON Dc 20370-5100 Docket No. 03536-10
11 February 2011
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 3
February 2011. 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 enlisted in the Marine Corps on 28 May 3003. On 25 April 2007,
the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) made preliminary findings that
you were fit for duty notwithstanding the residual effects of the
wounds you had received on 22 April 2004 when an improvised explosive
device was detonated near you. You accepted the findings of the PEB
on 7 May 2007, and were honorably released from active duty on 27
May 2007 by reason of completion of required active service. As you
were eligible and recommended for reenlistment at that time, you were
assigned a reentry code of RE-1A. Effective the day following your
release from active duty, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
awarded you separate disability ratings of 10 percent for seven
conditions, as well as a 30 percent rating for posttraumatic stress
disorder.
The Board found that your receipt of disability ratings from the VA
is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your Marine
Corps record, because the VA assigned those ratings without regard
to the issue of your fitness for military duty on 27 May 2007. As
indicated above, you were found fit for duty by the PEB, and you
accepted that finding. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates
that you were unfit, to reasonably perform the duties of your office,
grade, rank or rating on 27 May 2007 by reason of physical disability,
the Board was unable to recommend favorable action on your request.
“Recordingly, 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,
Waa
W. DEAN PFE F
Executive Di
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00602-09
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 | 04458-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 January 2011. As noted above, you were found fit for duty by the PEB, and you accepted that finding, which suggests that you felt that you were fit for duty at that time. 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 | 04422-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 March 2011. You were discharged in accordance with the approved findings of the PEB on 31 March 2007. 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 | 00466-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, ‘sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 February 2011. Its assignment in your case does not imply that you were released from jactive duty for medical reasons or that you were separated or retired ‘by reason of physical disability. 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 | CY2008 | 09521-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 July 2009. Your receipt of disability ratings from the VA for numerous conditions that were not evaluated or rated by the PEB 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 military duty, and you have not demonstrated that any of those conditions...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07928-06
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 June 2007. In addition, it considered an advisory opinion dated 4 May 2007 that was furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps. In this regard, the Board was not persuaded that the notification of the preliminary findings of the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) was mailed to an incorrect address.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11951-09
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 | CY2010 | 04787-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 February 2011. As there is no indication in the available records that you were unfit for duty on 30 July 2009 due to the effects of any of the additional conditions rated by the VA, the Board was tunable to recommend favorable action in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05692-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navai Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 June 2009. As noted above, you accepted the initial findings of the PEB, waived your right to a hearing, and acknowledged that you would be separated or retired by reason of physical disability. 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 | CY2007 | 04706-07
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 12 November 2003, the Physical Evaluation Board made preliminary findings that you were unfit...