DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No. 05797-10
18 April 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 7 April
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 Navy on 20 February 2001. In an evaluation report
which covers the period 1 March-17 June 2005 you received an
individual trait average of 3.5, a rating of “Must Promote”, a
recommendation for retention, and very favorable narrative comments.
You were honorably discharged for the convenience of the government
on 17 June 2005 by reason of a condition not a disability;
unfortunately, the condition which resulted in your being discharged
in not shown in the available records. Effective 18 June 2005, the
Department of veterans Affairs (VA) awarded you a combined disability
rating of 40% for a low back condition, left wrist strain, and a
C-section scar. A rating of 30% was added for posttraumatic stress
disorder effective 28 September 2007.
The Board concluded that your receipt of substantial 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 military duty on the
date of your discharge. In addition, it noted that although the VA
may add ratings at any time during a veteran’s post-service lifetime,
as it did in your case when it rated the posttraumatic stress
military disability determinations are fixed as of the date
LOT Or permanent retirement. As you have not demonstrated
, tu we beunfit to reasonably perform your duties on 17 June 2005,
the Board“was unable to recommend favorable action in your case.
Accordingly, your application has been denied. 7
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,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04094-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 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. The VA rating officials who made that award found no objective evidence in your naval health record that was pertinent to your claim, and they...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05362-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 March 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. 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 | 03820-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 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 | CY2010 | 08643-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, Sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 May 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05392-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 March 2011. Your receipt of disability compensation from the VA 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 material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 13827-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 May 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. You served on active duty in the Marine Corps from 29 December 2003 to 28 December 2007, when you were voluntarily released from active duty at the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09081-07
’ A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 September 2008. The Board concluded that your receipt of VA disability ratings for multiple conditions effective the day following your release from active duty is not probative of the existence of material 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03293-08
; A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 June 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 | CY2007 | 05877-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 June 2008. The increase in severity of your back condition which occurred during the years following your discharge is a matter under the purview of the VA, rather than the Department of the Navy, as the VA may adjust and add disability ratings throughout a veteran’s lifetime, whereas rating determinations made by the military departments are fixed as of the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02099-06
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 on 23 April 2004, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) made preliminary...