DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No. 06117-10
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 completed a Report of Medical History on 31 October 2009 in
connection with your application for enlistment in the Navy. You
denied having any significant medical history, to include a history
of back problems. A copy of that form is enclosed. You did not disclose
your disqualifying history of intervertebral disk pathology and
having received epidural steroid injections treat right lower
extremity pain and weakness related to the disk pathology. The Board
was not persuaded that the similar symptoms in your left lower
extremity you had while on active were caused by an injury or disease
process that were incurred while you were on active duty.
The Board determined that you were not entitled to a characterized
separation because you were discharged after completing only 24 days
of service. It noted that service members who are discharged within
their first 180 days of service will receive an uncharacterized entry
level separation unless exceptional circumstances of personal
conduct or performance are present in their case, and then only upon
the approval of the Secretary of the Navy acting on a case by case
basis. No such circumstances were present in your case. The Board
also noted that you could have been processed for separation by reason
of fraudulent entry and received a reentry code of RE-4, which would
have precluded your reenlistment. Your reentry code of RE-3E does
not preclude your reenlistment if you can obtain a waiver of your
disqualifying spinal condition. In addition to the foregoing, the
Board found that you have not demonstrated that you should have been
discharged by reason of physical disability vice erroneous entry.
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,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 13144-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 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 | 06461-10
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected to show that he was assigned a more favorable reentry code than RE-4, and that he be granted a waiver of physical disqualification from reenlistment. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Garst, Gorenflo and McBride, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 14 April 2011 and, pursuant to its...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06393-10
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 medical board determined that you did not meet the minimum physical standards for enlistment because of the OD, and recommended that you be discharged without entitlement to disability benefits administered by the Department of the Navy. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
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 | CY2014 | NR0287 14
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. On 29 November 2011, you signed and acknowledged that you were being administratively separated due to fraudulent entry based on your failure to disclose vital mental health information which existed prior to your enlistment. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 01825-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 March 2011. On 13 October 1995 you were given a diagnosis of asthma, which was considered disqualifying for enlistment and not correctable to meet Navy standards. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval trecord, the burden ig on the applicant to demonstrate the pexistence of probq@ble material error or injustice.
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01808
ANALYSIS SUMMARY : The Board evaluates VA evidence proximate to separation in arriving at its recommendations, but its authority resides in evaluating the fairness of fitness decisions and rating determinations for disability at the time of separation.DoDI 6040.44 specifies a 12-month interval for special consideration to VA findings.Post-separation evidence, however, is probative only to the extent that it reasonably reflects the disability at the time of separation from military...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00316
CI CONTENTION : The CI states: “The PEB gave me 0% for lumbar radiculitis and degenerative disease. The neurosurgeon completing the NARSUM evaluation did not provide measured ROMs, although he commented, “low back range of motion is not particularly compromised.” He noted a “mild limp favoring the right lower extremity” (not directly linked to spine by exam; therefore not ratable IAW §4.71a), normal response to straight leg raise, and normal reflexes. The Board does not have the authority...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10281-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 August 2003. It concluded that although your service was extended until 31 October 2001 to allow you to recuperate from the surgery, there was no need for an extension beyond that date, and no basis for further action by an MEB or the PEB. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01750
The VA assigned a40% rating for the back condition rated 5292-5293 citing severe limitation of motion of the lumbar spine. The discussed the C&P examination report that the CI held on a chair and compared that examination with prior examinations and concluded the examination confirmed characteristic pain on motion but did not evidence muscle spasm.The Board also considered if additional disability rating was justified for peripheral nerve impairment due to radiculopathy.Although there was...