DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
JRE
Docket No: 3240-01
26 December 2001
Dear
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 6 December 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.
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.
6100/4, in
The Board found that on 9 January 1998, you completed a NAVMED Form
which you acknowledged that you had been counseled concerning the effects of your refusal
to undergo surgery to correct your torn medial meniscus, to include the possibility of
discharge from the naval service without entitlement to disability benefits administered by the
Department of the Navy. On 13 January 1998, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) found
you unfit for duty because of the torn meniscus, and determined that your condition was not
ratable in view of your unreasonable refusal to undergo recommended surgery. In
accordance with SECNAVINST
having been incurred as a result of your own willful neglect, and not in the line of duty.
You accepted the findings of the PEB on 4 February 1998, and you were discharged on 8
April 1998,. without entitlement to disability benefits.
1850.4.D, paragraph 3413, your disability was classified as
In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that your refusal of surgery was reasonable,
the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in your case. 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
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 03396-03
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 September 2003. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. On 20 March 2002, the Naval Medical Center, Portsmouth, Virginia, recommended that you It gave you diagnoses of be discharged from the Navy because of your unsuitability for continued military service due to your...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05737-09
Paragraph 3102a provided, in part, that a case entered the Navy disability evaluation system when an MEB was dictated for the purpose of evaluating the diagnosis and treatment of a member who was unable to return to military duty because the member’s condition most Likely was permanent, and/or any further period the member to full duty. SECNAVINST 5420,.193, 19 November 1997, enclosure 1 (codified as 32 CFR 723), section 3e(2), provides that the Board may deny an application 4£ it...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04877-08
| A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, gitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 April 2009. The Board did not accept your contention to the effect that your condition was misdiagnosed as a right medial meniscus tear and, consequently, that your discharge was based on a condition that did not exist. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00231
The PEB adjudicated the bilateral patella femoral syndrome condition as unfitting, rated 10%, with application of the Veteran’s Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). Effective January 2005, the VA assigned separate ratings of 10% for each knee based on new examination evidence supporting separate ratings for each knee. The Board noted that PEBs often combine multiple conditions under a single rating when those conditions considered individually are not separately unfitting and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11886-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 September 2009. The Board concluded that your belated decision to request retention in the Navy Reserve in lieu of discharge, and to undergo elective knee surgery, are insufficient to demonstrate that you were improperly found unfit for duty by the PEB, or to warrant rescinding the orders that directed your discharge from the Navy Reserve. Consequently, when...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080009048
Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army physical disability evaluation system (PDES) and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating. The PEB is required by law to determine the physical disability rating using the Veterans Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). In the applicant's case, there is no evidence that his left...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 01177
The CI reported limited function of her left leg and that it was unstable with difficulty with stairs and walking. The Board considered the findings and noted that the ROM was normal on the VA examination. I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05898-00
(BUMED) that you It was the Naval In addition, the Board noted that as you did not have a remaining reserve obligation The Board noted that a determination of your fitness for duty and entitlement to disability benefits administered by the Department of the Navy is under the cognizance of Disability Evaluation System (DES), rather than the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery. case if the PEB had evaluated this member, she would have been found fit for continued active duty service. from active...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04434-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 August 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201596
” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s date of discharge. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or...