DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 dee
Docket No. 06608-10
15 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 14 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 reenlisted in the Navy on 15 July 1975 and served until 13 October
1970, when you were discharged by reason of physical disability
because of a back condition that was rated at 10% disabling by the
Physical Evaluation Board. On 1 February 1971, the Veterans
Administration awarded you a 10% rating for back strain. The VA
confirmed the 10% rating on 30 October 1979.
The Board was not persuaded that on 13 October 1970 you were unfit
for duty by reason of physical disability that was ratable at or above
30% disabling, which was the minimum rating required for the
retirement of a service member who had not completed sufficient
service to qualify for length of service retirement. 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
, ABEL ne =r a poration of an official naval record, the burden
meres OSnt &o demonstrate the existence of probable material
Fticel ,
Sincerely,
LX Qan\to
W. DEAN PFETRF
Executive Dir
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06233-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 April 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 | 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 | CY2001 | 00946-00
On 18 September 1972, based on a review of records from January and July 1972, the VA increased your rating to 30%. The Board carefully considered your contention that your condition should have been rated at 30% or higher by the Navy in 1963, but it was not persuaded that the condition was ratable in excess of 10% at the time of your discharge. The fact that the VA has rated your condition in excess of 10% disabling since 14 October 1970 was not considered probative of In this regard, it...
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 | CY2001 | 00878-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 October 2000. Accordingly, in the absence of evidence which demonstrates that your discharge by reason of misconduct was improper, and that you were unfit by reason of physical disability at the time of your discharge, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Mon Sep 25 10_08_50 CDT 2000
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 April 1999. The officials who rated your condition were required to choose one of the three options under finding (9) in order to establish your basic eligibility for disability benefits administered by the Department of the Navy. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04718-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 July 2001. IN REPLY REFER TO: 1400/3 MMPR-2 13 Mar 01 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS ADVISORY OPINION IN THE CASE OF FORMER - ‘ a retired Marine indicates that he completed his he grade of probationary corporal and should have been promoted to the grade of sergeant prior to his retirement from the Marine Corps on 22...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11220-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 August 2011. The fact that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded you separate ratings of 10% for asthma from 13 February 1992, headaches from 12 April 1996, and allergic rhinitis from 7 October 1996, as well as 70% for posttraumatic stress disorder from 30 August 2004, is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your Navy record because...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06185-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 October 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 | CY2010 | 07193-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 April 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...