DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
OARD FOR CORRECTIC St
RC OR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
m
TIR
Docket No: 472-13
24 October 2013
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, 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 16 October 2013. The names and votes of the
members of the panel will be furnished upon request. 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 cf 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice, SS
You enlisted in the ‘Marine Corps, began a period of active duty
on 19 November 1971, and served without disciplinary incident.
Subsequently, you were referred for 4 medical evaluation. As a
result, you were diagnosed with degenerative arthritis of the
Left elbow which existed prior to your enlistment, found to be
unsuitable for further’ naval service; and recommended for an
expeditious administrative discharge. :
Subsequently, you were ‘notified of pending administrative
separation action by ‘reason of erroneous enlistment due to the
diagnosed degenerative arthritis, and it appears that you did not
object to the. discharge: As-such, your commanding officer
recommended discharge by reason of erroneous enlistment aque to
the diagnosed degenerative arthritis. The'discharge authority
approved this recommendation and directed an honorable discharge
by reason’ of erroneous enlistment, and on 2 February 1972 you
were so discharged and assigned an RE-3P reenlistment code.
ae ae SES
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your desire to change your narrative reason for separation. It
further considered your assertion that you were only 17 days shy
of being eligible for veterans’ benefits. In this regard, the
Board noted that an individual must serve on active duty for no
less than 180 days to be eligible for veterans’ benefits, and
your record reflects that you served for one month and 14 days.
Nonetheless, you should contact your nearest Department of
Veterans Affairs (DVA) office to seek a determination as to
whether or not you earned benefits based on your period of
service, as this is a matter under their cognizance. Further, if
you have been denied DVA benefits, you should appeal that denial
under the procedures established by the DVA. Nevertheless, the
Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
relief in your case because of your diagnosed degenerative
arthritis which existed prior to your enlistment. Finally, there
is no evidence in the record, and you submitted none, to support
your assertion. Accordingly, your application has been denied.
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,
W. DEAN PFE
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3010 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 November 2014. 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...
CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2012-057
The PDBR increased the applicant’s Coast Guard’s rating for his bilateral knee disability from 10% to 20%. Although the DVA granted the applicant disability ratings for certain other conditions that were not diagnosed by the Medical Board and CPEB, this Board has consistently held that a disability rating from the DVA for a condition not rated by the Coast Guard does not, in and of itself, establish that the Coast Guard committed an error or injustice by not rating any of the other...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00648
Further, it is noted the Air Force disability boards must rate disabilities based on the members condition at the time of evaluation; in essence a snapshot of their condition at that time. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3010 14_Redacted
Documentary material considered by the Board consi your application, together with all material submitted in thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulati and policies After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence sul tted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable erial error or Ln uselce l You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 28 June 1968. New evidence is evidence not...
CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2002-147
The limited duty medical board report stated that the applicant suffered with bilateral knee pain for several years and that x-rays showed moderated degenerative joint disease of the left knee and mild degenerative joint disease of the right knee. Thus, while the DVA rated the applicant's bilateral degenerative arthritis and knee instability separately, the Coast Guard rated them as one disability. Accordingly, it was appropriate for the Coast Guard to rate the applicant for only...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00711
After being discharged, he received a service-connected disability rating of 30 percent for Bipolar Disorder from the Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA). Under Title 10, United States Code (USC), Physical Evaluation Boards must determine if a members condition renders them unfit for continued military service relating to their office, grade, rank or rating. The complete DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06383-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 May 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006779
The applicant states that he was to have a second medical board and that all his medical records were not reviewed before his discharge. The applicant non-concurred the board's decision of not finding his back condition unfitting and that the board should have at least granted him 20 percent disability for his back condition. By letter to the President, PEB, dated 6 November 1991, the applicant stated in a rebuttal, in effect, that he was led to believe that his case would be on hold at...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-00939
The Medical Consultant noted that shortly following his discharge from the Air Force, the applicant separated from his wife and applied to the DVA for disability compensation for his various medical problems. He sleeps a lot during the day since he is not able to sleep well during the night and claimed that he has severe sleep apnea. He now requests that he be medically retired from the Air Force as of the date of his separation on 26 Jul 99, contending that he was suffering from the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 05898-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 July 2012. Although the discharge documentation is not in your record, it appears that you requested discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for the foregoing 375 day period of UA. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, which included supporting documentation, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating...