DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
JRE
Docket No: 800-01
6 December 2001
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 29 November 2001. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures
applicable to the proceedings of this Board.
consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your
naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board
considered the advisory opinion furnished by Director, Naval Council of Personnel Boards
dated 3 May 2001, a copy of which is attached.
Documentary material considered by the Board
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 substantially concurred with the comments contained
in the advisory opinion. 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.
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
Enclosure
I
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
VAVAL COUNCIL OF PERSONNEL BOARDS
WASHINGTON NAVY YARD
KENNON STREET SE RM 309
720
WASHINGTON, DC 203746023
5420
Ser:
3 May 01
01-1 8
From:
To:
Subj:
Ref:
Director,
Executive Director,
(a) Your
(b) SECNAVINST
Naval Council of Personnel Boards
Board of Correction' for Naval Records
ltr
JRE:jdh Docket No: 00800-01 of 27 Mar 01
1850.4D
This letter responds to reference (a) which requested comments and
On 1 May 1995,
1.
a recommendation regarding Petitioner's request for correction of his
records.
Navy and placed on the TDRL.
received a disability rating of
he was transferred to the Permanent Disability Retired List
The Petitioner's case history,
2 .
thoroughly reviewed in accordance with reference (b) and is returned.
The following comments are provided:
a.
TDRL with a disability rating of 60%
On 8 May 2000,
PDRL.
the findings and did not request a formal board.
On 1 May 1995,
His disability rating was reduced from 60% to 30%.
the Petitioner was discharged from the U.S.
The Petitioner believes he should have
50%
instead of the 30% he received when
contained in reference (a), was
the Petitioner was found unfit and placed on the
for a severe aortic insufficiency.
the Petitioner was transferred from the TDRL to the
requires that the Physical Evaluation
subsequent to the Petitioner's
In January 1998,
the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) revised
(PDRL).
He accepted
In the absence of
The latter is
However,
the activity tolerance
Neither
the 1998 criteria turn largely on either ejection fraction
b.
Title 10, Chapter 61,
Board employ the rating criteria in effect at the time of finalization
of TDRL status.
placement on the TDRL,
the rating criteria for cardiovascular conditions.
evidence of endocarditis or recent episodes of congestive heart
failure,
reduction or the degree of endurance impairment.
measured in metabolic units (METS) during activity with endurance
defined as that effort which results in significant distress (as
evidenced by dyspnea, fatigue, angina, dizziness, or syncope).
the 1 February 2001 TDRL Examination nor the records enclosed with this
BCNR application contain such data.
history submitted suggests relatively little current functional
impairment despite the poor structural integrity of the Petitioner's
aortic valve.
C .
replacement,
METS/Endurance measurement data indicating greater functional
impairment,
less.
Notwithstanding the clinical recommendation for aortic valve
in the absence of any contemporary ejection fraction or
the disability rating options are still limited to 30% or
Subj:
REQUEST
FOR COMMENTS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE CASE OF
In summary,
3.
functional impairment.
time the Petitioner's TDRL status was finalized, the assigned PDRL
disability rating of 30% was
that Petitioner submit any m
impairment.
there is insufficient evidence of significant
Based upon the DVA rules and regulations at the
appropriate.
issing
data demonstrating funct
It is strongly recommended
ional
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01663
Her condition was determined to be stable and heart function was within normal limits. There was no cardiac hypertrophy by direct measurement on the last echocardiogram prior to separation and the ejection fraction was within normal limits. SUBJECT: Department of Defense Physical Disability Board of Review Recommendation for AR20130010959 (PD201201663)I have reviewed the enclosed Department of Defense Physical Disability Board of Review (DoD PDBR) recommendation and record of proceedings...
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01420
The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the VASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. A 10% rating under these codes stipulates “Workload of greater than 7 METs but not greater than 10 METs results in dyspnea, fatigue, angina, dizziness, or syncope, or; continuous medication required.” The CI’s exercise capacity easily exceeded 10 METs. BOARD FINDINGS :...
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00979
BAV and chest pain (exertion related) were the only conditions on the MEB’s submission to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). The CI made no appeals and was medically separated with a 10% disability rating. I have reviewed the subject case pursuant to reference (a) and, for the reasons set forth in reference (b), approve the recommendation of the Physical Disability Board of Review Mr. XXXX’s records not be corrected to reflect a change in either his characterization of separation or in...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02675
The MEB forwarded “aortic valve disorder” to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW SECNAVINST 1850.4E.No other conditions were submitted by the MEB.The Informal PEB adjudicated “hypercoagulable state requiring chronic anticoagulation therapy”as unfitting, rated 0%, and determined that the bicuspid aortic valve (status post replacement) was a Category III condition, not separately unfitting and not contributing to the unfitting condition.The CI made no appeals and was medically separated. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04518-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 September 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. (a) which requested comments and a recommendation regarding Petitioner's request for correction of his On 4 June 1993, the Petitioner was discharged and placed on records. placed on the TDRL with a disability rating...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-00595
Cardiac Condition. The PEB and VA rated the cardiac condition under different codes which have the same rating criteria IAW §4.104. The PEB rated the cardiac condition 10%, 7000 valvular heart disease, citing requirement for continuous medication (Coumadin).
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00927
The PEB adjudicated the history of chest pain with EKG evidence of a septal infarct and sinus arrhythmia condition and the asthma condition as unfitting, rated 0% and 0% respectively, with likely application of DoDI 1332.39 and the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The VA coded the CI’s combined respiratory conditions (asthma and OSA) as 6602-6847 at 50% IAW VASRD §4.96 (a) and stated “The law requires when certain respiratory conditions coexist, a single...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 00613
SEPARATION DATE: 20030522 The aortic insufficiency (AS) with chest pain syndromewas forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501 and no other conditions were submitted by the MEB.The PEB adjudicated the heart condition as unfitting, rated 10%, with application of the VASRD.The CI made no appeals, and was medically separatedwith thatdisability rating. Providing orders showing that the individual was retired with permanent disability effective the date of the original...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00042
The Air Force Informal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) found her unfit for continued service and she was separated with a 10% disability rating for 7099-7020 Cardiac septal aneurysm and mild mitral valve regurgitation (Ejection fraction 60-65%) using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Ratings Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Air Force and Department of Defense regulations. Given the VA’s reasonable 30% rating rationale of diminished symptom free exertion (METs), interplay between CI’s...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04718-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 July 2001. IN REPLY REFER TO: 1400/3 MMPR-2 13 Mar 01 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS ADVISORY OPINION IN THE CASE OF FORMER - ‘ a retired Marine indicates that he completed his he grade of probationary corporal and should have been promoted to the grade of sergeant prior to his retirement from the Marine Corps on 22...