DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
B O A R D F O R C O R R E C T I O N OF NAVAL R E C O R D S
2 N A V Y A N N E X
W A S H I N G T O N D C 2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0
JRE
Docket No: 4455-01
6 March 2002
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 14 February 2002. 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 was not persuaded that you should have been retired by reason of physical
disability, vice discharged with entitlement to disability severance pay. It found that on 1
February 2000, the Physical Evaluation b a r d made preliminary findings that you were unfit
for duty because of right L4 radiculopathy secondary to foraminal stenosis at the L4/5 level.
You accepted those findings contingent upon your being retained on active duty until 17
September 2000. Your condition was accepted, and you were discharged with entitlement to
disability severance pay on 17 September 2000. You were given a provisional diagnosis
obstructive sleep apnea on 17 October 2000, and the diagnosis was confirmed on 25 October
2000, and you it appears that you were prescribed a CPAP during December 2000. Those
findings were not considered probative of the existence of error or injustice in your record,
because obstructive sleep apnea, even when requiring the use of a CPAP device, is not
unfitting per se. In addition, there is no indication in available records that you suffered
from excessive daytime somnolence or other any c f k t of the obstructive sleep apnea which
resulted in significant industrial impairment or rendered you unfit to perform the duties of
your rate. The Board found it notable that you received a 4.0 evaluation report for the 1
March-17 September 2000 period, and that your performance of duty was described in very
positive terms, and you were recommended for early promotion.
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 considcrcd by the I3uard. 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
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02360
The examiner opined that the CI’s condition was stable and his functional status depended on his getting a restful night’s sleep using the CPAP or Bi-PAP machine which was variable.The second commander’s statementdocumented that the CI’s medical condition prevented him from engaging in both soldering and MOS related tasks as he was unable to sleep without a CPAP or BI-PAP device by his side and his medical condition adversely impacted his unit’s readiness. RECOMMENDATION : The Board...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 08271-98
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected to show that he was separated or retired by reason of physical disability. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Milner and Molzahn and Ms. Gilbert, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 8 July 1999 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 01039
A CPAP machine was ordered and the examiner changed the profile to a P-4 profile. There is no evidence of a PEB document for review in this case; however, the Board was able to confirm that the CI was separated for OSA and received severance pay. In consideration of this evidence, and IAW DODI 6040.44, the Board must recommend a separation rating of 50% for the OSA condition.
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01122
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 thoracolumbar spine exam showed moderate spasm and flattening of the lower lumbar spine. From 1 to 10 (10 being the worst pain) the pain level is at 6.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00371
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied. Following DPPD’s assessment, they conclude the applicant was treated fairly throughout the military Disability Evaluation System (DES) process, that he was properly rated under federal disability guidelines at the time of his evaluation, and that he was afforded the opportunity for further review as provided by federal law and policy. As...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00230
This is evidence that the CI’s back condition worsened over time but the board must rate the disability of unfitting conditions as they are at the time of separation. The CI had obstructive sleep apnea that required the use of a CPAP machine and the Commander’s letter implied that this condition had a negative impact on his daily duty performance along with his back pain. However, at the time of separation the Air Force did not separate service members simply because they were not able to deploy.
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00625
SUMMARY OF CASE : Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty member, SSG/E-5 (3P051/Security Forces Journeyman), medically separated from the Air Force after 10 years of service. VA treatment notes through 2008 show the CI continued to use his CPAP machine. Other PEB Conditions .
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00860-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 April 200 1. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003720
The advisory opinion states that on 18 February 2003 an informal PEB found the applicant unfit due to his back pain and sleep apnea, and recommended separation with severance pay. Additionally, there is no evidence of any "conspiracy" regarding the applicant's disability findings or processing, his back and sleep apnea conditions were properly rated, and his depression (later termed PTSD by others) was not unfitting at the time of his separation based on clear evidence in the case file. ...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02123
No other conditions were submitted by the MEB.The Informal PEB adjudicated “Obstructive Sleep Apnea with CPAP, mild impairment” as unfitting, rated 0%. Therefore, IAW VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD)§4.97 (schedule of ratings,respiratory system)and 6847 rating criteria, the disability due to the OSA condition meets the 50% rating specified as “requires use of breathing assistance device such as continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machine, but does not meet the next higher...