.:
DEPARTMENTWF
THE NAVY
CORRECTlqEI OF NAVAL RECORD
BOARD FOR
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
S
JRE
Docket No: 4800-00
13 July 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 21 June 2001.
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 injustice
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 did not accept your contention to the effect that the acts of misconduct which
resulted in your reduction to grade E-3 and discharge for the good of the service in lieu of
trial by court- martial were attributable to the effects of an undiagnosed medical condition;
that you were suffering from symptoms of diabetes mellitus, and that your condition was
misdiagnosed by Navy medical personnel as a spinal disc condition; and that you did not
It also rejected your unsubstantiated
undergo a pre-separation physical examination.
contention to the effect that you were advised by a former Speaker of the House of
Representatives on 6 February 1992 to go to his office in Washington D.C., and that you
“checked in” with him the following day.
The Board noted that an, entry in your dental record indicates you underwent a flight physical
examination on 15 October 1991. Although the report of the examination cannot be located,
there is no indication in available records that any significant abnormal findings were made at
that time. You absented yourself without authority on 1 December 1991, missed the
movement of your ship, the USS America, and remained absent until 4 December 1991.
Thereafter, you refused to execute travel orders to report to the America, which was
deployed, and you absented yourself without authority on 6 February 1992. As you had
indicated that you would not return to the America, and you had removed all of your
personal belongings therefrom, you were classified as a deserter. You remained absent in
desertion until 30 March 1992. You underwent a pre-separation physical and dental
examinations on 12 June 1992, and completed a Report of Medical History and a dental
health questionnaire on that date. You denied a history of any of the hallmark symptoms of
diabetes mellitus, and you did not report symptoms of mental confusion. You disclosed,
pertinently, that you had “L-5, S-l disc trouble under civilian treatment ”; that you had been
treated at a civilian hospital and Portsmouth Naval Hospital for a back problem; and that you
had consulted a civilian orthopedic surgeon and a civilian neurosurgeon. You also indicated
that your back had been treated by a doctor of osteopathy, and that you had no then current
problem with your back. You were found physically qualified for separation on 12 June
1992., and were discharged from the Navy under other than honorable conditions on 19 June
1992.
The Board noted that you were properly reduced to grade E-3 upon the approval of your
request for discharge, as required by governing directives. It concluded that in view of the
serious nature of your misconduct, your service was appropriately characterized with a
discharge under other than honorable conditions.
In addition, it noted that you avoided
significant jeopardy by requesting discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial, to include a
Federal conviction, punitive discharge, confinement at hard labor, forfeiture of pay and
allowances, and reduction to grade E-l. The Board carefully considered the matters
submitted in support of your application concerning your overall record of service, and post
service good character and accomplishments, but found those matters insufficient warrant the
upgrade of your discharge. The opinions expressed by your former military superiors were
of no probative value to the Board, because those opinions were based, in large part, on your
unsubstantiated assertion that your misconduct was related to an undiagnosed illness, which,
as noted above, was rejected by the Board.
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 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
burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or
injustice.
&rection of an official naval record, the
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
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 | 07800-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your application on 14 June 2001. As you have not demonstrated that you were unfit for duty because of diabetes mellitus on 21 September 1991, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in your case. 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.
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01412
The PEB coded chronic low back pain 5295 (lumbosacral strain and pain on motion) and rated it 10% based on IAW DOD and VASRD guidelines. At the MEB exam of 25June2002 the CI reported no neck pain or cervical paresthesias. Neither charted exam was compensable based on ROM limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008284
The PEB found the applicant physically fit for duty within the limitations of his profile and recommended that he be returned to duty as fit. The PEB indicated that his diabetes mellitus was not unfitting and not rated. The MEB recommended that the applicant be referred to a PEB, and on 10 April 1991 an informal PEB found the applicant physically fit for duty within the limitations of his profile and recommended that he be returned to duty as fit.
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00244
Left Knee Condition . It could therefore not be added as an additional knee coding as the CI’s symptoms were already considered under the painful motion rating and the lower back rating and it was determined that a second knee rating would be pyramiding. The CI contends for addition of Diabetes Mellitus as a new unfitting condition at time of separation with subsequent rating.
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00947
The Board determined therefore that there were no dental conditions subject to service disability rating. The Board does not have the authority under DoDI 6040.44 to render fitness or rating recommendations for any conditions not considered by the DES. No other conditions were service connected with a compensable rating by the VA within 12 months of separation or contended by the CI.
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 00920
Major depressive disorder (MDD), diabetes mellitus (DM)Type 1, migraine headaches (HAs) and chronic HAs conditions were also forwarded by the MEB as medically unacceptable.The PEB adjudicated the bilateral ankle and low back conditions as unfitting, rated 0% and existed prior to service (EPTS), respectively,referencing the US Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) pain policy.The remaining conditions were determined to be not unfitting and, therefore, were not rated. The gait was noted as...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00139
While the DES considers all of the service member's medical conditions, compensation can only be offered for those medical conditions that cut short a service member’s career, and then only to the degree of severity present at the time of final disposition. An MEB endocrinology examiner, 3 months prior to separation, noted a normal gait and no back tenderness. After due deliberation in consideration of the preponderance of the evidence, the Board concluded that there was insufficient cause...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120020266
The applicant requests correction of his DA Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings) to show his retirement was based on a disability from an injury that was received in the line of duty as the direct result of armed conflict or caused by an instrumentality of war and incurred in the line of duty during a period of war as defined by law. On 5 November 2010, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened and considered the applicant's conditions under the provisions of Army...
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-02130
She was issued a P4 profile and referred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The CI non-concurred but later concurred with the PEB findings and recommendations and was medically separated. Post-Separation) ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Diabetes Mellitus Type I 791320%Diabetes Mellitus791320%20031212Diabetic Retinopathy w/ Lattice Degeneration600710%20031221Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy, LLE8599-852010%20031212Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy, RLE8599-852010%20031212Other x 0...