DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAW ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No: 5355-99
4 October 1999
Dear~E~ —11W~
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 23 September 1999. 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.
The Board found that you underwent a periodic examination on 26 January 1999. You stated
that you had no gastrointestinal complaints at that time. The results of the physical
examina~tionand laboratory testing were essentially normal, and your post surgical course
was described as “stable”. The physician did note, however, that you required a “specific”
diet to control dumping symptoms, and he felt that you should be retained on the Temporary
Disability Retired List. The Physical Evaluation Board reviewed your case on 3 May 1999,
and found you fit for duty. You were notified of those findings by letter dated 12 May
1999. As you did not make a timely response to the notification letter, your acceptance was
presumed and your case finalized.
Commanding Officer, Naval Reserve Personnel Center, of your right to apply for
reenlistment in the naval service.
In a letter dated 3 July 1999, you were notified by the
The Board concluded that the finding of fitness made in your case by the Physical Evaluation
Board was warranted, given the absence of unfitting residuals of your stomach surgery at the
time of your final periodic examination, and your failure to make timely objection to the
finding of fitness.
It noted that the recommendation that you be retained on the Temporary
Disability Retired List which was made of the physician who examined you on 26 January
1999 was not binding on the Physical Evaluation Board. The Board concluded that the
subjective increase in symptomatology you experienced following the periodic examination
was insufficient to demonstrate that the finding of fitness was erroneous or unjust.
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.
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.
In this
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00113-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 January 2002. The Board found that on 21 November 1994, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) made preliminary findings that you were unfit for duty because of an Ll burst fracture, rated at 30%) and a left acetabular fracture and a coccygeal injury, rated together at 30%) for a combined rating of 50%. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06977-01
” The Board noted that it is the function of an MEB, which is composed entirely of physicians, to report on the state of health of the service member who is the subject of the MEB, and to recommend referral of the member to the PEB in appropriate cases. In reference to the question of why Petitioner's cardiac and pulmonary conditions found not unfitting at the time of his initial PEB adjudication and placement on the TDRL, reference Petitioner's original 14 February 1992 Medical Evaluation...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 06145-98
CoTection of Naval Records, sitting in executive A three-member panel of the Board for session, considered your application on 13 May 1999. 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 | CY2007 | 10460-07
You then served in the Navy Reserve until 14 September 1991, when you were honorably discharged from the service and not recommended for reenlistment pursuant to the approved findings of an administrative discharge board (ADB). You completed reports of medical history on those dates in which you falsely denied that you had ever been discharged from military service. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07928-06
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 June 2007. In addition, it considered an advisory opinion dated 4 May 2007 that was furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps. In this regard, the Board was not persuaded that the notification of the preliminary findings of the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) was mailed to an incorrect address.
CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2005-078
The medical board noted that the applicant had been offered two years of limited duty for follow-up of his cancer, but now desired a medical board. (2) of the PDES Manual states when the CPEB (or FPEB) reviews the case of a member on the TDRL findings are required for any impairment not previously rated. The evidence further shows that the applicant was placed on the TDRL on March 15, 1999 due to "malignant neoplasm of the genitourinary system" with a 30% disability rating and that no...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04372-02
your back condition to Navy or Marine Corps officials after you underwent spinal disc surgery in 1990. The Board noted that although you suffered acute exacerbations of your back condition during periods of military duty in 1997 and 1999, you did not sustain any significant trauma to your spine during those , and there was permanent aggravation of the preexisting periods, you were not “injured” The exacerbations of your condition, one condition during those periods of military duty. VASRD...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04548-00
As noted by diagnosis of migraine that in itself is not synonymous with disability the member's headaches are "generally not Even stipulating arguendo that the member has a headaches the evaluating physician, incapacitating and she is able to continue working through the pain." The member also testified that No one has found any reason for The member has had a CBC, bone panel, HLAB-27, all of which have been within normal limits The member has had two epidural injections 5/5 in all muscle...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10963-07
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083878C070212
The notification indicates that action was being initiated to separate the applicant from the Florida Army National Guard for non-completion of a physical required to establish fitness for duty. In March 1999 the applicant submitted an application to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records requesting assistance in having her discharge from the Army National Guard corrected to show she was discharged because of medical reason and transferred to the Retired Reserve. The applicant’s...