DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
	      BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
	        2 NAVY ANNEX	
					WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

											JRE
							Docket No. 05968-03
											13 August 2004

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 5 August 2004. 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 in addition, it considered the enclosed advisory opinion from the Director, Naval Council of Personnel Boards, and your response thereto.
	
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. In this regard, it substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion. The Board was not persuaded that you should have received higher ratings for any rated condition, or that you suffered from any other ratable conditions when you were released from active duty in 1996, and permanently retired in 2001. In addition, the Board was unable to conclude that any material errors occurred in your case resulted in your being permanently retired with a disability rating lower than you should have received. It concluded that the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs in rating several conditions not rated by the Navy is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your Navy record, because the VA awards disability rates all conditions incurred in, aggravated by, or reasonably connected to a period of military service, without regard to the issue of fitness to perform military duty.

In view of the foregoing, 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,

W. DEAN PFEIFER
Executive Director