Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11455-10
Original file (11455-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

JRE
Docket No. 11455-10
11 August 2011

 

This ig 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 11
August 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 served on active duty in the Navy from 26 June 1986 to 30 June
2006, when you were transferred to the Fleet Reserve. Thereafter,
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded you compensable

disability ratings for low back strain, bilateral knee conditions,
and tinnitus.

There ig no indication in the available records that any of the
conditions rated by the VA resulted from a specific combat-related
event. The Board noted that the back condition was the result of
an injury you sustained in a motor vehicle accident, and that the
specific cause of the tinnitus has not been determined. The fact
that your knees became painful while you were serving on a naval
wessel was considered insufficient to establish that the condition
is combat-related, even though the vessel may have been “in harm'‘s
way” at that time. Accordingly, your application has been denied.
The names and votes of the members of the panei will be furnished
upon request.

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that
favorable action cannot betaken. 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,

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06515-09

    Original file (06515-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 September 2009. 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120018589

    Original file (20120018589.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant provides: * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision * Progress Notes * three letters from the CRSC Branch * DA Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings) CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. On 16 November 2011, the HRC CRSC Branch informed the applicant that they were unable to overturn the previous adjudications because the documents he submitted still showed no new evidence to link his requested conditions to a combat-related event and he was advised to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01495-08

    Original file (01495-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 January 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015774

    Original file (20140015774.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel provides the following in his written brief, in effect stating: * the applicant filed an application for CRSC; after multiple decisions, HRC partially granted his request, but denied compensation for PTSD and tinnitus * the applicant served honorably in the Army, citing the four DD Forms 214 * he was referred into the Army's PDES and, on 29 August 2011, a formal PEB found his left knee injury and migraine headaches to be combat-related; he was medically retired on 29 January 2012 *...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05305-10

    Original file (05305-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 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 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 | CY2009 | 06432-09

    Original file (06432-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 September 2010. 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. 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 | 04458-10

    Original file (04458-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130020373

    Original file (20130020373.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his records to show that the leg injury he sustained on 23 January 1991 was caused by a simulation of war; therefore, in accordance with Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) guidelines it was combat-related and service-connected for the purpose of qualifying for Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC). Eligible members are those retirees who have...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00021-09

    Original file (00021-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 March 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Director, Secretary of the Navy Council of Personnel Boards dated 23 November 2009 and your response thereto. Among the records in that Folder are two civilian health record entries of note which you did not submit in support of your application.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00145

    Original file (PD2009-00145.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    Discussion: The CI was diagnosed with PTSD and was found unfit for PTSD at 10%. VARD (diagnosed as Tinnitus) 20080516 and rated it at 10% based on exam of 20080107: The condition is noted in your service treatment records as of May 3, 2007; We have assigned a 10 percent evaluation based on examination findings that has determined, your tinnitus is persistent in nature; the diagnosis that has been given is ringing in the left ear. There is no hearing loss present on the right and there is...