Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01741-99
Original file (01741-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WAS HINGTON DC  

20370-5100

JRE
Docket No: 1741-99
21 August 2000

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 10 August 2000.
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.

Your allegations of error and

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 on 14 December 1998, you accepted the findings of the Physical
Evaluation Board (PEB) that you were unfit for duty because of a probable tom right anterior
cruciate ligament (ACL). A second condition, a tom right posterior cruciate ligament, was
not considered separately unfitting. You were discharged with entitlement to disability
severance pay on 31 January 1999, pursuant to the approved findings of the PEB.

The Board noted the difference of opinion between the surgeons who authored your medical
board report, and the surgeon who repaired your tom ACL on 26 February 1999, following
your discharge. The latter felt that surgery would not restore you to a condition where you
would be able to complete rigorous Marine Corps training, while the former was of the
opinion that you would make a full recovery and be fit for full duty. The available records
do not indicate the extent of your recovery from your knee injury, or establish that you are
not fit for full duty. The Board was not persuaded that your discharge was erroneous, or
that you should be restored to active duty. 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



Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00025

    Original file (PD2010-00025.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    Orthopedic exam several weeks later noted a 1+ effusion with a 1+ Lachman test (i.e., positive anterior instability). After due deliberation, considering all of the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt), the Board unanimously recommends a separation rating of 10% for the left knee ACL condition coded 5257 and 10% for the medial meniscus condition coded 5259 for a combined rating of 20%. Subj: PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW (PDBR) RECOMMENDATIONS

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00064

    Original file (PD2013 00064.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB adjudicated “anterior knee pain after left anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction” as unfitting, rated 10%, with application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). There was no instability and examination of ligaments of the left knee was symmetrical compared to the uninjured left knee. Both the PEB and the VA rated the condition as 10% for painful motion of a major joint with similar coding (5010-5003 and 5257-5010 respectively).

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00848

    Original file (PD2012-00848.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) adjudicated the instability of left knee condition as unfitting, rated 10%. Instability of Left Knee Condition. RECOMMENDATION: The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no recharacterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination, as follows: UNFITTING CONDITION Instability of Left Knee, status post Left Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction VASRD CODE RATING 5257 COMBINED 10% 10% The following documentary evidence was...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01965

    Original file (PD-2013-01965.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The rating for the unfitting s/p left ACL reconstruction condition is addressed below; no additional conditions are within the DoDI 6040.44 defined purview of the Board. Members deliberated if this negatively impacted their ability to render a fair assessment and agreed that the available evidence was sufficiently probative; evidence presumed not accomplished would not materially affect the Board’s final recommendation.The PEB coded the left knee Grade II chondromalacia patellae s/pleft...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02796

    Original file (PD-2013-02796.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The physical examination noted normal ROM of the left knee, presence of a scar, and a general comment of “Stable.”The final diagnosis was reported as,“Left knee tibial plateau fracture with ligament injury.”At the MEB NARSUM exam on 6 February 2007, the CI was still using crutches in accordance with the post-operative recovery plan for 8 to 12 weeks of limited weight bearing. Although the ACL and PCL were intact, there was evidence of residual laxity at the time of the PT examination and...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00352

    Original file (PD2009-00352.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, upon reconsideration with further evidence from the Senior Medical Board Orthopedic Surgeon the PEB determined the CI was unfit and he was then separated with a 10% disability for 5299-5003 Medial Meniscus Transplant using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Ratings Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Navy and Department of Defense regulations. The VA does not seem to understand this procedure as well due the fact the VA rates my right knee as an ACL replacement, meniscal repair...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00496

    Original file (PD2012-00496.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) adjudicated the left knee injury condition as unfitting, rated 0%, with application of the Veteran’s Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The PEB adjudicated a 0% rating based on full ROM without residual joint instability. RECOMMENDATION: The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no recharacterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination, as follows: Left Knee Injury s/p Anterior Cruciate Ligament...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00865

    Original file (PD2010-00865.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The MEB forwarded “Status /Post (S/P) Left Knee Reconstruction, Symptomatic, Existed Prior to Service (EPTS) to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) on NAVMED 6100/1. No other conditions were rated by the VA at 0% within 12 months of separation. 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 Ms. XXX’s records not be corrected to reflect a change in either her...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 05891-98

    Original file (05891-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, it is a surgery that is frequently performed in the event of graft impingement after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, when a patient fails to return to full extension, as in this case. On 9/20, the patient underwent the procedure, a right knee anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft. His motion at that time was 0-100 degrees of flexion.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00600

    Original file (PD2012-00600.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Knee ROM Flexion (140⁰ Normal) Extension (0⁰ Normal) Comment §4.71a Rating Left 115⁰ 0⁰ Obese MEB ~6 Mo. Measurements of ROM showed reduced flexion, extension, and R/L lateral bending at 85, 20, 20, and 20 degrees. The Board considered the different coding options, but with the minimal ROM limitation in evidence and no history of incapacitation, none provided an avenue to a higher rating than the 10% adjudicated by both the PEB and VA. After due deliberation, considering all of...