2023 3rd BCNR Denial
Observations
The defendant the United States uses BCNR DES Denial decisions, without considering service member missed on all benefits of in service due process of the actual des system, which would at a minimum, have with a PEBLO officer, notified him of VA system disability support, which would have at a minimum had him apply for service connection within the first year of presumptive service connection, and not delayed by some 10 plus years
The Defendant the United States will not take responsibility over the admitted error of the commands involved in blue to green transfer handled by DOD Command USMEPCOM, not the fault of the service member.
The Defendant the United States even makes is seem that the responsibility is on the ill injured young service member to both understand and successfully attend treatment, when there is no evidence that the military doctors did anything to notify the young ill injured service member, beyond noting things in his medical record, of an illness and injury that historically been stigmatized negatively.
The Defendant the United States sees fit to never mention any operational or occupational stressors of a guided missile frigate and the MOS of a Deck Seaman/BM, although the service member has from the beginning 2016 BCNR application, sent in Navy BUMED online evidence studies confirming the direct line of duty connection between these and the injuries of Spine Musculoskeletal and Psychiatric. The defendant will only discuss part of the equation which was in service crew assaults threats, which even that they
The Defendant the United States makes it seem as if the plaintiff could reenlist under the RE1, although they now know, that the 3P was never entered and cleared through the DES MEB PEB process in service.
Observations
The defendant the United States uses BCNR DES Denial decisions, without considering service member missed on all benefits of in service due process of the actual des system, which would at a minimum, have with a PEBLO officer, notified him of VA system disability support, which would have at a minimum had him apply for service connection within the first year of presumptive service connection, and not delayed by some 10 plus years
The Defendant the United States will not take responsibility over the admitted error of the commands involved in blue to green transfer handled by DOD Command USMEPCOM, not the fault of the service member.
The Defendant the United States even makes is seem that the responsibility is on the ill injured young service member to both understand and successfully attend treatment, when there is no evidence that the military doctors did anything to notify the young ill injured service member, beyond noting things in his medical record, of an illness and injury that historically been stigmatized negatively.
The Defendant the United States sees fit to never mention any operational or occupational stressors of a guided missile frigate and the MOS of a Deck Seaman/BM, although the service member has from the beginning 2016 BCNR application, sent in Navy BUMED online evidence studies confirming the direct line of duty connection between these and the injuries of Spine Musculoskeletal and Psychiatric. The defendant will only discuss part of the equation which was in service crew assaults threats, which even that they
The Defendant the United States makes it seem as if the plaintiff could reenlist under the RE1, although they now know, that the 3P was never entered and cleared through the DES MEB PEB process in service.
Attachments
Last edited:
