DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
JRE
Docket No: 45 18-00
18 September 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 13 September 2001.
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures
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. In addition, the Board
considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Director, Naval Council of Personnel
Boards dated 26 April 2001, a copy of which is attached, and the comments of your counsel
in response thereto.
Documentary material considered by the Board
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. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained
in the advisory opinion. You were assigned a rating which reflected the degree of
impairment caused by your condition as of the date of your discharge.
below
disability severance pay, as required.
names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
30%, there was no available alternative to discharging you with entitlement to
Accordingly, your application has been denied. The
As that rating was
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
c
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
WASHINGTON NAVY YARD
KENNON STREET SE RM 309
720
WASHINGTON, DC 20374-5023
IN
REPLY
REFER
TO
542 0
:Ser
26 Apr 01
01-16
Director, Naval Council of Personnel Boards
Executive Director, Board of Correction for Naval Records
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE CASE OF
FORMER
(a) Your ltr JRE:jdh Docket No: 4518-00 OF 11 Jan 01
(b) SECNAVINST
1850.4D
(1) President, PEB ltr 1850
10R:lll PEB Index No. N1945 of
25 Auq 95
From:
To:
Subj:
Ref:
Encl:
This letter responds to reference
1.
(a) which requested comments and
a recommendation regarding Petitioner's request for correction of his
On 4 June 1993, the Petitioner was discharged and placed on
records.
the TDRL.
On 21 September 1995,
the member was removed from the TDRL
and separated with severance pay.
The Petitioner is seeking to have
his record corrected to reflect a higher disability rating for the
condition that rendered him unfit for further naval service and to be
returned to the disabled retired list.
The Petitioner's case history, contained in reference (a), was
2.
thoroughly reviewed in accordance with reference
The following comments are provided:
(b) and is returned.
a.
On 14 July 1992
, the member was diagnosed with Guillain-Barre
This condition rendered him unfit and he was discharged and
Syndrome.
placed on the TDRL with a disability rating of 40% on 5 June 1993. On
21 September 1995,
severance pay.
60% from 5 June 1993, 40% from 1 May 1996, 80% from 22 July 1997 and
90% from 3 February 1998.
the Petitioner was found to be not qualified for any TDRL/PDRL
disability payments by the Physical Evaluation Board
he was removed from the TDRL and separated with
The DVA ratings covered the time span when
The Department of Veterans Affairs
(DVA) carried him at
(PEB).
1995, the
b. On 20 July
PEB's Record Review Panel
8011-8520R (enclosure (1)).
(RRP) determined
the Petitioner's neurological condition was ratable at 0% under the VA
Disability Rating Code
This determination
was consistent with the 9 March 1995 DVA Fargo, North Dakota neurology
report indicating, in part,
exercising and is now able to engage in football and jogging
activities.
tingling in his left arm and problems focusing his left eye when
quickly changing visual fixation."
Petitioner's diagnosis was "acute Guillain-Barre Syndrome with almost
complete neurological recovery."
The only residual symptom he experiences is some mild
"He no longer wears ankle braces while
The report concluded that
C .
The Petitioner waived a hearing panel (Formal Board) appeal and
accepted the above findings of the RRP.
.
Subj
:
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE CASE OF
FORME
d.
The above noted symptomatic and functional improvement is not
reflected in the DVA Rating Decisions submitted with the BCNR
application because, apparently, no DVA Rating Decision occurred during
the extended period of improving/improved functioning during which the
above PEB TDRL evaluation sequence occurred.
e. Sadly, by the end of a nearly two year period after being
removed from the TDRL with severance pay and three years after his
Guillain-Barre Syndrome appeared to be in remission, the Petitioner's
condition deteriorated, although he was able to maintain employment on
a full-time basis.
f.
Incidentally, about half of the conditions listed in the
roughly concurrent 40% DVA disability rating appear to be conditions
that the PEB would have determined to not be separately unfitting,
(e.g., low back condition).
9.
There appears to be insufficient evidence to warrant granting
the BCNR request.
In summary, the evidence in the record supports the severance pay
3.
the Petitioner received and his removal from the TDRL. Accordingly, no
modification to the Petitioner's record is recommended.
4 .
If there are any questions,
my point of contact for this case is
He is available
JAGC, U.S. Naval Reserve.
at
(202)685-6399.
2
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082771C070215
The applicant stated that Guillain-Barre Syndrome is a rare illness and very few facts are known about what causes the illness and no treatment or cure of the illness has been found. Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability. It appears to the Board that the applicant was given an appropriate disability rating, which unfortunately required her separation with severance pay...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01923
The February 1979, TDRL evaluation showed his Hodgkin's Disease was still in remission and he had recovered from his Guillain Barre Syndrome with only minimal evidence of any residual weakness. The BCMR Medical Consultant's complete advisory is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that he elected not to reenlist because he was forced to find work while he was on the TDRL. After...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-01481
The VA did not accomplish a specific neurological C&P examination for the GBS condition until 26 months after separation; it was recorded as essentially normal. The VA coded the condition as 5295-6354, lumbosacral strain and chronic fatigue syndrome, and rated it at 50% IAW VASRD §4.28, pre-stabilization, but rated given a permanent 10% rating. RECOMMENDATION: The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no recharacterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination, as...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06977-01
” The Board noted that it is the function of an MEB, which is composed entirely of physicians, to report on the state of health of the service member who is the subject of the MEB, and to recommend referral of the member to the PEB in appropriate cases. In reference to the question of why Petitioner's cardiac and pulmonary conditions found not unfitting at the time of his initial PEB adjudication and placement on the TDRL, reference Petitioner's original 14 February 1992 Medical Evaluation...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02924-00
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. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00733
He was taken to a DVA Regional hospital on 28 March 2013 and was diagnosed with Guillain-Barre Syndrome. On 22 March 2013, the applicant was honorably separated from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3208. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicants request for reinstatement to active duty and to be medically discharged at the highest grade held.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00236
On 2 May 03, the Air Force PEB recommended that she be discharged with severance pay, based on a diagnosis of right ulnar neuropathy, with a compensable disability rating of 10 percent. At the time of her TDRL reevaluation she reported the stimulator did not relieve her pain. The Medical Consultant's evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02198
The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. Neurological examination revealed a mini mental status examination (MSE) of 30/30. The examiner opined that as a result of the accident, some of her mental symptoms were exacerbated and other new symptoms appeared.
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00966
(2) is limited to those conditions which were determined by the PEB to be specifically unfitting for continued military service; or, when requested by the CI, those condition(s) “identified but not determined to be unfitting by the PEB.” The condition Peripheral Sensory Neuropathy is a rated condition and meets the criteria prescribed in DoDI 6040.44 for Board purview. After due deliberation, considering all of the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt), the Board recommends...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00124-97
The findings of the hearing panel were approved, and he was permanently retired with a disability rating of 100%. He recommended that Petitioner ’s record be corrected accordingly. f. In correspondence submitted in response to enclosure (2), Petitioner’s counsel contends, in effect, that Petitioner ’s permanent retirement with a rating of 100% necessarily required the PEB to find that his back condition should have been initially placed in category I, and assigned a disability rating.