DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No. 08454-10
9 June 2011
Wo |
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 2 June
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 underwent a physical examination on 16 September 1997 in
connection with your transfer to the Fleet Reserve. Although you
disclosed a fairly extensive history of illness and injury at that
time, you were found physically qualified for duty. The Department
of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded you a combined disability rating
of 30% from1 September 1998, and 40% from 18 March 2002, for arthritis
of the right knee and left shoulder, lumbar strain, and
pseudofolliculitis barbae.
Your receipt of 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 duty at the time of your transfer to the Fleet Reserve. The Board
noted that although the VA must rate all conditions that are incurred
in or aggravated by a veteran’s service, the military departments
ma assign disability ratings only in those cases where a service
member has been found unfit for duty. Accordingly, and as there is
no indication in the available records that you were unfit to
reasonably perform your duties at the time of you transfer to the
Fleet Reserve in 1998, your application has been denied. The names
and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
Bip noc: =
¢
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 | CY2009 | 02130-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval . 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 material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09581-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 August 2008. 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 | 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 | CY2001 | 00851-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 October 2001. It does not appear that you advised the examining physicians of any conditions you thought rendered you 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 | CY2002 | 04809-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 February 2001. Such awards are made without regard to the issue of fitness for military 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 | 03198-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 October 2001. demonstrated that you were unfit for duty on 30 January 1976, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in your case. 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 | CY2009 | 13238-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 January 2010. In the absence of credible evidence which establishes that you were unfit to reasonably perform the duties of your rank by reason of physical disability due to any of the additional conditions rated by the VA, the Board was unable to recommend corrective action in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06411-02
As you may kn fitness for military duty cases where the service presumption of fitness, disorder were considered insufficient to warrant any corrective ove, you have not demonstrated that you were unfit for duty, isability separation or retirement of a service member. The Veterans Administration and the Gulf War Health rked up these multiple medical problems without definitely defining was found “fit” for retirement, his case was not referred to the PEB r not he was eligible for medical...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01304-08
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 denied your request for service connection for nine other conditions. 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 | 07396-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application OR 22 August 2002. You also received multiple ratings of 0% and one of 10 % for The Board was not persuaded that your mood disorder was ratable above 30% disabling at the time of your permanent retirement. 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...