DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
JRE
Docket No. 13060-11
9 October 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 4 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 15 June 1995, the Record Review Panel of the Physical
Evaluation Board made preliminary findings that you were unfit
for duty due to mechanical low back pain which was ratable at
10. You accepted those findings on 26 Jun 1995 contingent upon
your being retained on active duty until 1 August 1995. The
contingency was accepted, and you were discharged from the Navy
by reason of physical disability on 1 August 1995, with
entitlement to disability severance pay.
You were not entitled to retirement under the Temporary Early
Retirement Authority program because you had not completed 15
years or more of active service as of the date of your discharge
from the Navy. You were not entitled to transfer to the
Temporary Disability Retired List or to be permanently retired
by reason of physical disability retirement because your
disability was not ratable at 30% or higher. 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 official
naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the
existence of probable material error or injustice.
Sincerely,
© Smet Oi, tise
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08664-09
”A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 June 2010. On 1 October 1996 the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) reviewed that report of that examination and determined that you remained unfit | for duty due to a seizure disorder, which was ratable at 20%. 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 | 02335-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 June 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 | CY2007 | 03233-07
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 were evaluated by a medical board on 9 March 1988 and given a diagnosis of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 12280-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 November 2009. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that your condition was ratable at or above 30% disabling on the date of your discharge from the Navy, 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00878-07
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 were released from active duty on 28 February 2002 and transferred to the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05991-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 February 2003. After reviewing the report of that examination on 14 April 2000, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) made preliminary findings that you were unfit for duty because of residuals of your cancer, which it rated at 0%. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05543-00
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 findings of the PEB were mailed to you at your last On 8 June In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that your condition was ratable at 40% or higher at the time of your discharge, and that you were compliant with medical advice, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03507-02
December 1997, the PEB made preliminary findings that you remained unfit for duty, and that your disability was ratable at 20%. VA code 527 1 provides for a 20% rating for marked limitation of motion of the ankle, and 10% for moderate limitation of motion. 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 | 12362-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 February 2010. 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 | 04558-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 February 2003. 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...