Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3519 13
Original file (NR3519 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 §. COURTHOUSE ROAD BLDG 12, SUITE 1001

ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

JRE
Docket No. 3519-13
December 16, 2013

 

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 12 December 2013. 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 9 January 2008 to 6
December 2009, when you were discharged for the convenience of
the government due to a minor knee condition which, although not
disabling, interfered with your performance of duty.

Your receipt of a disability rating from the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) is not probative of the existence of error
or injustice in your Navy record because the VA assigns ratings
without regard to the issue of a veteran’s fitness for military
service at the time of separation from the service. As you have
not demonstrated that your knee condition rendered you unfit by

Printed on &) Recycled Paper
reason of physical disability, 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. 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,

\o Deen

W. DEAN PF
Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | NR7104 12

    Original file (NR7104 12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your receipt of disability ratings from the VA for conditions not rated by the PEB is not probative of error or injustice in your naval record because the VA assigns disability ratings without regard to the issue of fitness for military service. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that you were entitled to a higher disability rating from the PEB for your knee condition or that you suffered from any other conditions that should have been rated by the PEB, the Board was unable to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2220 13

    Original file (NR2220 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    2220-13 becember i6, Z0i5 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. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted OF 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04458-10

    Original file (04458-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 January 2011. As noted above, you were found fit for duty by the PEB, and you accepted that finding, which suggests that you felt that you were fit for duty at that time. 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 | 07874-10

    Original file (07874-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 May 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 | CY2001 | 08062-99

    Original file (08062-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive considered,your application on 13 December 2000. 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 material...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02031-08

    Original file (02031-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 September 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 | CY2010 | 01189-10

    Original file (01189-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 September 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. Your receipt of substantial @isability ratings from the VA is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record because...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06051-08

    Original file (06051-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 July 2009. 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 material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07762-10

    Original file (07762-10.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. 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 | CY2010 | 01197-10

    Original file (01197-10.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 November 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 Poiying for a correction ‘of an official naval record, the burden ee on the applicantito demonstrate the existence of probable...