DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
JRE
Docket No. 12128-11
5 November 2012
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 25 October 2012. 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.
On 20 December 2004 the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) made
preliminary findings that you were unfit for duty due conditions
of your spine and feet and an eating disorder. The PEB also found
that you suffered from two category II disorders that were
related to the spinal disorder, a foot condition that was not
unfitting, and three conditions that did not constitute a
physical disability. You accepted those findings on 24 January
2005, and waived your right to a hearing before the PEB. You
were discharged in accordance with the approved findings of the
PEB on 31 March 2005.
The fact that you received a substantially higher combined
disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
was not considered probative of error or injustice in your naval
record. In this regard, the Board noted that the VA may assign
disability ratings without regard to the issue of a veteran’s
fitness for military duty vis-a-vis the rated conditions at the
time of discharge. In addition, the VAmay rate conditions such
as your adjustment disorder that do not constitute disabilities
under laws administered by the military departments. As you have
not demonstrated that the PEB should have assigned you a
combined disability rating of 30% or higher, or that you should
have received ratings for additional conditions, the Board was
unable to recommend 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. Inthis 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 offical
naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the
existence of probable material error or injustice.
Sincerely,
ERT D. Z4SA
ting Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04018-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 March 2009. The Board concluded that your receipt of substantial disability ratings from the VA effective the day after you were discharged from the Navy is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your Navy record. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05305-10
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 | 05882-09
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. As you have not demonstrated that any of the additional conditions rated by the VA rendered you unfit to reasonably perform your Military duties, and that you were entitled to a combined rating from the Department of the Navy of 30% or higher, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03379-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive Your allegations of error and injustice session, considered your application on 17 May 200 1. regu’.ations and procedures applicable to the were reviewed in accordance with administrative proceedings of this Board. The military departments, however, may rate only those conditions which render a service member unfit for duty, or which warrant a separate rating. condition was ratable at 30% or higher, or...
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00317
The severity of the CI’s symptoms at the time of the MEB psychiatric NARSUM three months prior to separation was documented as moderate by the examiner. He denied suicidal ideation, but had thoughts of hurting others. Pre-separation documentation records satisfactory performance of duties, and VA evidence 11 to 15 months post-separation reflects status as a full-time student (the later C&P examination in December 2008 documented CI report of difficulties with school due to his symptoms).
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09521-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 July 2009. Your receipt of disability ratings from the VA for numerous conditions that were not evaluated or rated by the PEB 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 military duty, and you have not demonstrated that any of those conditions...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02099-06
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 on 23 April 2004, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) made preliminary...
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-01086
Although these conditions and ratings were assigned an effective date to the time of separation, the earliest VA rating examination underpinning them was performed 17 months after separation. The CI’s contention regarding evaluation of all his medical conditions in the DES process is not eligible for Board recommendations but may be eligible for submission to the Board for Corrections of Military Records of the Coast Guard. No service treatment records regarding shoulder pain is in...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 02083
At the MEB exam, the CI reported daily lower back pain causing him to be depressed. The neck condition was reviewed and considered by the Board. BOARD FINDINGS : IAW DoDI 6040.44, provisions of DoD or Military Department regulations or guidelines relied upon by the PEB will not be considered by the Board to the extent they were inconsistent with the VASRD in effect at the time of the adjudication.The Board did not surmise from the record or PEB ruling in this case that any prerogatives...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02087
The Board considers DVA evidence proximate to separation in arriving at its recommendations; and, DoDI 6040.44 defines a 12-month interval for special consideration to post-separation evidence. Although the PEB determined that this condition did not constitute a physical disability, there is no evidence than there was an unfitting MH condition regardless of diagnosis. RECOMMENDATION : The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no re-characterization of the CI’s disability and...