DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
JRE
Docket No. 8393-12
19 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 18 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.
You served on active duty in the Navy from 3 September 1991 to
24 February 1993, when you were discharged by reason of physical
disability. Effective 25 February 1993, the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded you a combined disability rating
of 20%. The VA increased that rating to 40% effective 2 May 1995,
and ultimately to 50% effective 1 March 2012.
The increase in your combined VA rating in the decades following
your discharge is not probative of the existence ef error or
injustice in your naval record. In this regard, the Board found
that although the VA may increase a veteran's disability ratings
at any time to reflect post-service changes in the severity of
rated conditions, ratings assigned by the military departments
are fixed as of the date of separation or permanent retirement.
As you have not demonstrated that you were entitled to a
disability rating of 30% or higher from the Department of the
Navy as of 24 February 1993, the Board was unable to recommend
any corrective action in your case. 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. Youare 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 inj wetice.
Sincerely,
WW aca Oy r Aes,
ROBERT D. “SALMAN
Acting Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01060-01
A three-niember panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 November 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 | 09791-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 September 2008. In addition, the VA may amend ratings at any time it determines there has been a significant improvement or worsening of a rated condition, and it may add ratings for new conditions that are considered secondary to a rated condition, as in your case, where you received ratings for bilateral hip conditions more than eight years after you were...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07496-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 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. The combined rating was increased to 30% on 18 October 1996, and made effective from 10 August 1994. i The Board noted that in order to be entitled to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05180-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 June 2011. Your receipt of disability ratings from the VA for conditions not rated by the Department of the Navy 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 vis-a-vis those conditions. Consequently, when applying for a correction...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07762-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 March 2011. You accepted those findings on 10 January 1989, and were honorably discharged from the Marine Corps on 17 February 1989 Following your discharge, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded you a 10% rating for the flat feet condition, and denied your request for service connection fora bilateral knee condition. Consequently, when applying for a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07447-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 June 2008. your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. As you have not demonstrated that your kidney condition should have been rated above 30% disabling when you were permanently retired in 1983, or that you were entitled to a separate rating for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00271-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 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 | CY2012 | 01614 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 December 2012. 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 | 00091-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 July 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 | 06977-01
” The Board noted that it is the function of an MEB, which is composed entirely of physicians, to report on the state of health of the service member who is the subject of the MEB, and to recommend referral of the member to the PEB in appropriate cases. In reference to the question of why Petitioner's cardiac and pulmonary conditions found not unfitting at the time of his initial PEB adjudication and placement on the TDRL, reference Petitioner's original 14 February 1992 Medical Evaluation...