DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5300

JRE
Docket No. 10106-07
2 June 2008

Dear

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 22 May 2008. 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. In this connection, the Board concurred with the findings made in your case on 13 June 2007 by the Combat Related Special Compensation Branch, Secretary of the Navy Council.

The medical records you submitted, which show that you complained of an acute hearing loss and tinnitus in late 1975, do not establish a direct causal connection between a combat related event and the onset of those conditions. Even if it were
to be assumed for the sake of argument that the acute hearing loss and tinnitus you reported in 1975 were combat-related, you have not established that the disabilities rated by the VA after you retired were incurred in 1975. As you know, you served in the Air Force for almost ten years before you enlisted in the Navy on 2 January 1975. It is likely that you incurred a hearing loss and tinnitus from unknown causes during your Air Force service, as a Standard Form (SF) 88, Report of Medical History, dated 21 October 1974, shows a significant high frequency hearing loss. Paradoxically, an SF 88 dated 13 May 1975 shows normal hearing; a high frequency hearing loss was recorded in an SF 88 dated 17 November 1976; and your hearing was again recorded as normal in an SF 88 dated 8 December 1979.

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 PFEIFFER
	Executive Director