DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Y
2
NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No:
23 October 2000
878-00
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 19 October 2000. 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 served on active duty in the Navy from 21 May 1970 to 20 May
1974, and 12 December 1974 to 23 April 1976, when you were discharged by reason of
misconduct. Although you were treated for back and other joint pain from time to time
during your service, starting early in your first enlistment, and at one time a diagnosis of
ankylosing spondylitis was entertained, your physical complaints were minor in nature, and
there is no indication that you were unfit to perform the duties of your office, grade, rank or
rating. In this regard, the Board noted you completed a Standard Form 93, Report of
Medical History, on 21 April 1976, in connection with your discharge physical examination.
You stated “I Feel
GReaT! [sic]” when queried about the general state of your health, and
denied a history of recurrent back pain, arthritis, rheumatism or bursitis. You were found
physically qualified for discharge by the examining physician.
The Board noted that a discharge by reason of misconduct takes precedence over and
precludes disability evaluation processing. Accordingly, in the absence of evidence which
demonstrates that your discharge by reason of misconduct was improper, and that you were
unfit by reason of physical disability at the time of your discharge, the Board was unable to
recommend any corrective action in your case. You should note that anlcylosing spondylitis
is not unfitting per se, and that disability retirement is accorded only in those cases where the
service member has been found unfit for duty. The issue of entitlement to compensation for
a conditions such as yours, which might be related to a period of military service, but was
not unfitting at the expiration of that period, is within the purview of the Department of
Veterans Affairs.
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
injustice.
material error or
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07721-09
You had no military status during the period from 26 June 1979 to 19 December 1988. , The Board considered your application and all pertinent records in accordance with the provisions of SECNAV Instruction 5420.193, enclosure (1), Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (codified at 32 CFR 723), paragraph 3e. During the 1979-1989 period, you received treatment from VA health care providers for multiple conditions such as hip, back and knee pain, chronic recurrent foot pain,...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02720
He was followed up in neurology on 29 August 2006 and noted to have a normal motor examination. These measurements are also more consistent with the final clinical note prior to separation which recorded near resolution of symptoms. BOARD FINDINGS : IAW DoDI 6040.44, provisions of DoD or Military Department regulations or guidelines relied upon by the PEB will not be considered by the Board to the extent they were inconsistent with the VASRD in effect at the time of the adjudication.The...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01446-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 November 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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. on 29 March 1992 and rated his condition...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02487
The back condition, characterized as “slight, constant low back pain (LBP) due to ankylosing spondylitis,” was the only condition forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501. An X-ray of the spine found bilateral sacroiliac sclerosis, and lumbar spine pseudarthrosis. I direct that all the Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected accordingly no later than 120 days from the date of this memorandum.
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01975
No other conditions were submitted by the MEB.The PEB adjudicated “ankylosing spondylitis, associated with bilateral sacroiilitis and hip pain” as unfitting, rated 20% in accordance with the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD).The CI made no appeals, and was medically separatedwith a 20% disability rating. The Board opined that in the absence of systemic symptoms of an active process,the AS condition was best rated based on the residual limitation of lumbar spine...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060007032C070205
Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. After the formal hearing, the board carefully considered all of the available evidence in his case and found that the applicant was physically unfit because of service connected disability, and recommended that he be placed on the TDRL and rated 40 percent disabled. The applicant states that the injury or disease...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00147
The medical basis for the separation was a back condition. Those two conditions with Low Back Pain account for 100% of my pain.’ She correlates these conditions with anthrax immunization on active duty. In the matter of all of the CI’s other medical conditions; the Board does not recommend a finding of unfit for additional rating at separation.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02290-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 February 2002. Unlike the VA, the military departments are permitted to assign disability ratings only in those cases where the service member has been found unfit for duty. 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.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-01248
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01248 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES IN THE MATTER OF: ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His AFMPC Form 134, Retirement Order, block 12, Compensable Percentage of Physical Disability, be changed from 60 to 80 percent. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04458-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 January 2011. As noted above, you were found fit for duty by the PEB, and you accepted that finding, which suggests that you felt that you were fit for duty at that time. 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.