Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11475-10
Original file (11475-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

JRE
Docket No. 11475-10
4 March 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 3 March
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. In
this regard, it was not persuaded that your adverse skin reaction
caused by the wearing of a Navy uniform item was erroneously
Classified as a pre-existing condition, or that that the condition
rendered you unfit for duty by reason of physical disability. It
noted that if the condition had developed as a result of an in-service
occurrence, it is likely that you would have been discharged for the
convenience of the government due to your inability to wear the Navy
uniform, which interfered with your performance of duty but did not
render you unfit for duty. Your receipt of disability compensation
from the Department of Veterans Affairs for resolved contact
dermatitis is not probative of the existence of error or injustice
in your naval record because the VA awarded that compensation without
regard to the issue of your fitness for military duty.
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 importdnt 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,

head :
W. DEAN PFE
Executive Directo

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04196-10

    Original file (04196-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 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 | 04901-10

    Original file (04901-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 March 2011. 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 naval service as of 28 October 2009. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11150-10

    Original file (11150-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 August 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 | 06501-10

    Original file (06501-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 April 2011. Effective 23 March 1994, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded you disability ratings of 20% for the spinal disc eondition, 10% fer CTS of each wrist, 50% for a total hysterectomy with removal of ovaries and fallopian tubes, and 0% for two other conditions. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05392-10

    Original file (05392-10.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. 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 | 08685-10

    Original file (08685-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 June 2011. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that you are entitled to combined disability rating of 30% or higher for the ear canal tumor and hearing loss, or that you suffered from any other conditions that rendered your unfit for duty at the time of your discharge, the Board was unable to recommend favorable action on your request. Consequently,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07459-10

    Original file (07459-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 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 | CY2010 | 04422-10

    Original file (04422-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 March 2011. You were discharged in accordance with the approved findings of the PEB on 31 March 2007. 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 | CY2000 | 03548-00

    Original file (03548-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 1 May 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 | CY2002 | 03604-02

    Original file (03604-02.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 November 2002. 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.