DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX JRI
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 Docket No. 02974-11
7 June 2011
CY
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 26 May
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 11 May 2004 to 25 October
2008, when you were discharged by reason of physical disability with
entitlement to disability severance pay. Your unfitting condition
was chronic recalcitrant tibial pain that was related to your
condition of shin splints. It appears that you concurred with that
disposition, as you accepted the finding of unfitness and
recommendation for discharge that were made by the Physical
Evaluation Board in your case. You were assigned a reentry code of
RE-3P to indicate that you require a waiver of physical
disqualification in order to become eligible to reenlist.
That you no longer suffer from chronic tibial pain does not
demonstrate that you were discharged in error, or provide a basis
for amending your reentry code, which is the most favorable code that
you could have received as a Sailor being discharged by reason of
physical disability. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates
that you were fit for duty on 25 October 2008, there is no basis for
the Board to take favorable action on your request. 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
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,
Lo Domed the
W. DEAN PFEVF
Executive Dire r
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05221-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 January 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 | 02529-01
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. DIAGNOSIS NUMBER (2) WAS CONSIDERED A CATEGORY III CONDITION. THE MEMBER APPEARED AT THE HEARING REQUESTING TO BE FOUND UNFIT FOR CONTINUED NAVAL SERVICE WITH DISABILITY RATINGS OF 10% UNDER V.A.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04422-10
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 | CY2010 | 00290-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 October 2010. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that you were not physically qualified for release from active duty on 2 October 2008, or that you were unfit for duty by reason of physical disability on 27 May 2009, when you were discharged by reason of physical fitness assessment failure, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08032-07
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.The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 4 October 2000. The VA denied your request for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08032-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 July 2008. The Board concluded that your receipt of a combined disability rating of 10% from the VA does not demonstrate that your discharge from the Navy by reason of a condition, not a disability, is erroneous or unjust. As you have not demonstrated that you were unfit reasonably perform the duties of your office, grade,rank, or rating, there is no basis for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03617-06
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 May 2007. An enlistment is considered erroneous if it would not have occurred had all relevant facts been known by Department of the Navy officials, such as your predisposition to developing ankle pain. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00662-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 January 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...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00642
The Board evaluates DVA evidence proximal to separation in arriving at its recommendations, but its authority resides in evaluating the fairness of DES fitness decisions and rating determinations for disability at the time of separation. Right Knee Condition . After extensive review of the DES record, the Board was unable to find any route to achieve a combined disability rating higher than 10% under any applicable code and no extant pathology which would merit additional rating.
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00503
The CI was referred to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), determined unfit for continued Naval service, and separated at 10% disability using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Ratings Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Navy and Department of Defense regulations. Despite this treatment he continued to note activity limiting pain and instability in his right ankle. Exhibit C. Department of Veterans' Affairs Treatment Record.