DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
JR-E
Docket No: 2924-00
18 June 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 7 June 2001. 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.
opinion furnished by the Director, Naval Council of Personnel Boards dated 5 February
2001, a copy of which is attached, and the rebuttal information submitted by your counsel.
In addition, the Board considered the advisory
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
It was not persuaded that your condition was ratable at.more than
in the advisory opinion.
50% disabling at the time of your permanent retirement from the Navy. 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
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL COUNCIL OF PERSONNEL BOARDS
WASHlNGTON NAVY YARD
KENNON
720
WASHINGTON. DC 203746023
STREET' SE RM 309
IN
REPLY REFER TO
542 0
Ser :
5 Feb 01
00-2 7
Director,
Executive Director,
Naval Council of Personnel Boards
Board of Correction for Naval Records
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION IN THE CASE OF FORMER
(a) Chairman, BCNR JRE: jdh DN: 2924-00
(b) SECNAVINST
1850.4D
ltr of 25
Ott 00
I
From:
To:
Subj:
Ref:
This letter responds to reference
1.
a recommendation regarding petitioner's request for correction of his
records to grant him a disability rating of 100%.
31 October 1994.
support the petitioner's request for a change of records.
We have determined the evidence in this case does not
(a) which requested comments and
He was discharged on
The petitioner's case history, contained in reference (a), was
2.
thoroughly reviewed in accordance with reference
The following comments and recommendations are provided:
(b) and is returned.
a.
On 5 August 1993,
a medical board diagnosed Lieutenant
with Demyelinating Disease and Bilateral Lower Extremity Numbness
Transverse Myelitis.
further service.
The Board recommended he be found unfit for
On 6 December 1993,
an Informal Board recommended he be placed
on the TDRL with a disability rating of 30%.
On 31 May 1994,
the member appeared before a formal board and
requested to be found unfit at a rating of 70%.
him to be unfit with a disability rating of 70% based on
disease,
major depression episode.
disability rating of 70% and placed him on the TRDL.
bilateral lower extremity numbness transverse myelitis and
On 3 August 1994, the PEB issued a
The formal board found
,demyelinatng
b.
C
.
d.
e.
f.
On 13 February 1996,
the same disabilities.
On 27 November 1996,
and returned him to the TDRL.
the VA rated Lieutenant
the RRP rated Lieutenant
On 23 March 1998,
the VA reviewed Lieutenant
rated him at 100% disability based upon weakness and numbness, voiding
dysfunction,
sclerosis,
and major depressive disorder.
coordination and slurred speech due to multiple
lack'of
g-
On 14 December 1999,
the RRP awarded Lieutenant
disability rating of 50% based on Demyelinating Disease, bilateral
lower extremity numbness transverse myelitis and major depression
episode.
‘
at 80% for
at 30%
n case and
a
Subj:
REQUEST
FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION IN THE CASE OF FORMER
h.
On 31 January 2000,
the PDRL with a 50% disability rating.
the member was found unfit and placed on
1.
The difference between the 23 March 1998 VA disability rating
and the 31 January 2000 PEB finding is likely the product of 15 months
of time separating the physical examinations.
\-
j.
The service member accepted the findings of the RRP and did not
challenge them by appearing before a formal board.
the service member accepted the findings of the RRP and
(b),
this resulted in finalization of the disability rating.
In summary,
3.
did not challenge them by appearing before a formal board.
reference
Accordingly,
be additional medical evidence circa the 1999 time frame that would
suggest the PEB determination did not reflect the overall ongoing
functional impairment of Lieutenant
for consideration.
the petitioner's request should be denied.
Per
Should there
this‘should be submitted
c
2
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-01207
CI CONTENTION : The CI states: “I was assigned less than 50% disability rating by the military for my unfitting PTSD upon discharge from active duty. PTSD Condition . Since being on TDRL he had continued psychiatric treatment with the VA.
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00343
The MEB forwarded only one condition; “Cervical spondylosis and multilevel degenerative disk disease with previous radicular and myelopathic signs.” The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) adjudicated the chronic radiating neck and shoulder pain condition as unfitting, rated 0% with application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The Board evaluates DVA evidence proximal to separation in arriving at its recommendations, but its authority resides in evaluating the...
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-00909
The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of theVeterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. The Board next considered if there was evidence of a functionally impairing radiculopathy due to the low back condition to provide additional rating. The Board considered the evidence in record supports thatthe CI’s...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00836
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW The PEB adjudicated the low back condition as unfitting, rated 10%, with application of the Veteran’s Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). Physical Disability Board of Review
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00525
CI CONTENTION : The CI states: ‘VA rated disability at 40% Service connection on May 28, 1997 and considered me unemployable on 4-22-04 for the back condition military discharged me with at 10%. Follow-up for back pain. The frequency and severity of the CI’s back pain and radicular pain increased significantly during his time on TDRL and this was consistent with the increasing severity of degenerative disc disease and herniated discs with impingement on the right S1 nerve root documented...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00809
The PEB adjudicated the LBP condition as unfitting, rated 20% and additionally occasional bilateral lower extremity numbness, multilevel lumbar spondyloarthropathy, and right lower extremity radiating pain conditions rated category II, with application of SECNAVINST 1850.4E and the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The CI appealed to a Formal PEB (FPEB) which met on 8 February 2005 and after hearing formal testimony from the CI, reviewing the PEB case file...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00775
“All measurements were reproducible except for forward flexion.” Painful motion; normal gait and posture; no spasm or tenderness; normal sensory and motor exams; “While supine on the exam table, the Soldier could flex at the waist to 90 degrees with his legs fully extended”* see textNo objective evidence of lumbar spasm and or neurological deficit; No evidence of episodes of incapacitation§4.71a Rating10%-20% (PEB 10%)10%All exams documented painful motion which IAW VASRD §4.59 (painful...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02208
The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of theVASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. The NARSUM noted bilateral lower leg pain associated with exertion, and some tenderness in the right lower leg, absence of atrophy, weakness and tropic changes. BOARD FINDINGS : IAW DoDI 6040.44, provisions of DoD or Military Department regulations or guidelines relied...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00712
The Service ratings for unfitting conditions will be reviewed in all cases. Low Back Pain Condition . The VA rating decision mentioned their 20% rating was “non-schedular”, however, “guarding severe enough to result in an abnormal gait” is a 20% rating criteria.
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 01141
Chronic Back Condition . He complained of chronic 2/10 back pain at rest and 6/10 pain with activity and lifting. Physical Disability Board of Review