DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
JRE
Docket No: 5267-01
28 December 2001
This is in reference to your
provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.
application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 13 December
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.
2001. Your allegations of error and
Documentary material considered by the Board
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 found that on 19 July 1999, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) made
preliminary findings that you were unfit for duty because of a herniated nucleus pulposus,
L4/5, rated at 10% under Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) code 5293. You accepted
the findings of the PEB on
severance -pay on 31 August 1999. On 8 September 2000, the VA awarded you a 40%
rating for your low back condition, and 10% for residuals of screw placement in the bones of
your right hand. The ratings were based, in large part, on the results of examinations
conducted during May 2000.
22 July 1999, and were discharged with entitlement to disability
20%, a service member must suffer from severe intervertebral disc syndrome, with
The Board was not persuaded that your lower back condition was ratable at or above 30%
disabling on the date of your discharge.
of
recurring attacks and intermittent relief.
intervertebral disc condition was severe. In this regard, it noted that although you had
substantial pain, and were clearly unfit for duty, the results of your
It noted that in order to warrant a rating in excess
The available records do not demonstrate that your
neurologic examination
were only mildly abnormal, and an MRI study did not show any nerve root displacement. It
is notable that straight leg tests conducted during May 2000 yielded negative results.
In view of the foregoing, your application has been denied.
members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
The names and votes of the
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 | CY2002 | 04558-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 February 2003. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00551
In 1999, the CI was referred for MEB due to chronic back pain, and he experienced increased symptoms of depression due to worry about his ability to remain in the U.S. and care for his family since he was not yet a U.S. citizen. VA C&P examinations therefore would be expected to be performed in a manner that would report examination findings consistent with the rating guidelines, in this case a lumbar range of motion rather than the combined thoracolumbar ROM that is measured and used under...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-00772
The MEB forwarded “thoracic back pain and herniated disk…”to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW SECNAVINST 1850.4E. An MRI of the thoracic spine of May 2000 revealed a small disc bulge in the mid back (T9-10) mildly compressing the thoracic spinal cord.On orthopedic evaluation in June 2000, motor and reflex exams were normal and surgical intervention was not recommended.At the MEB/narrative summary exam of 27 April 2001, 5 months prior to separation, the CI reported continued mid back...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00260
The PEB of 20011212 PEB found the CI unfit at 10% for 5099-5003 Chronic pain, left ankle, right knee, and low back pain rated as slight/frequent. (MEBD DIAG 2 [right knee] and 3 [LBP] Not Unfitting) and the CI was separated at 10% disability for his chronic left ankle pain. With regard to the left ankle, the left ankle rated at the 10% (moderate) level using either the military or VA evaluation at the time of discharge.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02436-03
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 August 2003. Although you had symptoms of spinal pathology prior to your release from it does not appear that you were unfit for duty at active duty, that time. 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 | PD 2012 00994
The Board agreed that the ROM at the time of the C&P examination more nearly approximated the 10% rating than the 20% rating under VASRD diagnostic code 5292, limitation of motion (as well as current VASRD guidelines). The Board considered whether the right and left knee conditions, when considered alone and separate from the LBP condition, were unfitting for continued military service. After due deliberation in consideration of the totality of the evidence, the Board concluded that the...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01821
After the disc decompression procedure performed 8 months prior to separation, the CI did experience relief from the radicular symptoms while his back pain persisted. BOARD FINDINGS : IAW DoDI 6040.44, provisions of DoD or Military Department regulations or guidelines relied upon by the PEB will not be considered by the Board to the extent they were inconsistent with the VASRD in effect at the time of the adjudication.As discussed above, PEB reliance on DoDI 1332.39 for rating chronic back...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01588
The CI also attached a one-page statement to his application which was reviewed by the Board and considered in its recommendations. BOARD FINDINGS : IAW DoDI 6040.44, provisions of DoD or Military Department regulations or guidelines relied upon by the PEB will not be considered by the Board to the extent they were inconsistent with the VASRD in effect at the time of the adjudication.In the matter of the chronic back pain s/p discectomy and fusion condition, the Board unanimously recommends...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 00968
The MEB also identified and forwarded one other condition for PEB adjudication.The Informal PEB adjudicated “chronic low back pain with radiculitis”and “bilateral plantar fasciitis” as unfitting, rated 10% and 0%. The CI was then medically separated. At the time of the MEB orthopedic NARSUM examination on 25 March 2002,the CI reported his plantar fasciitis pain had gone away due to not running, ruck-marching or prolonged standing since he received the L2 profile in July 2001.
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01759
The patient continued with rehabilitation; however, he continued to report episodes of severe back pain. Physical Disability Board of Review SUBJECT: Department of Defense Physical Disability Board of Review Recommendation for AR20130010303 (PD201201759)I have reviewed the enclosed Department of Defense Physical Disability Board of Review (DoD PDBR) recommendation and record of proceedings pertaining to the subject individual.