DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
JRE
Docket No:
13 ‘March 2001
592040
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 1 March 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.
In this connection, the
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.
Board substantially concurred with the rationale of the
hearing panel of the Physical Evaluation Board which considered your case on 23 April
1992, a copy of which is attached. It was not persuaded that your asthma was ratable above
10%) or that your cervical dysplasia was unfitting or ratable. There is no indication in the
available records that you suffered from any other unfitting conditions at that time. The fact
that the Department of Veterans Affairs awarded you a disability rating for a back condition
was not considered probative or the existence of material error or injustice in your record
because that agency awards ratings without regard to the issue of fitness for military duty.
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.
regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official
In this
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
RATIONAL81
THK
AT
CRARLRSTON
MEnBBR IS A
THK
RAVAL
TIHIS
YtAR
OF ABA
29
AOSPITAL ON 4
MAC,
APPIARAI(C8
1131,
ESrO,RE A
1991
D8C8HBER
VITR ABOUT.12
TKARS~
l48DICAL
UITR THE
SERVICS
OF
BOARD' AT
l~raRosesl
D
ASTtlilA;
HISTORT
(1)
(2)
(3) DYSPLASIA
PKB.,RBCORD
O? TOBACCO
TB8
O?
RdIlSU
CERV'r
PANKL CONSIDERED
\
Tfl8
TR8 CASK
bll 22
OCTOBBR_:~;.,~~~~
I
I
l
BEi POUND UNFIT FOR
R8PRBSBNTBD BY D.A.V.
DUTY
CODK 6602 AND
TO
T.1.
*PLACSl¶8NT ON
TRB TDRL.
COUMSBL,
XR JO8
UITR A DISABILITY
RIC8,
RATIHO
AHD"R8QU8STIN
OQ 301 UND
PR838NTtD
tlER
lf8WJ8R
ASTtIHA
HAD8
COPIBS
3IlCU
WBR
01
tIl8
AEALTR
tB8
R8C8
MtDICAL
AND
StR
INHAL8b AND
R8LAXATIOR,
n
.
THIS
WITH
INDICATB.
STABLE,
'TREATH8NT WITH
AND
AT THE
SELDANt,
HEHB8R'S
ONLX
ALXACORT
ALORO WITH
TIll8 OQ BOTH
ASTHMA IS
INT8RlfITT8Ut
AND
APOIDANC8
HKALTH
ATROVBNT
O?
RlCORD
URDBR
SHORtN8SS
O?
CROHOLTN
EXCKLLEHT CONTROL
BRBATU UN
SOD1
8NVIROWK
;CL
,YBRE
IRHALlRS,
THS SHIPBOARD
BRTRIBS,
TH8
Tlit
QlLHBER'S
LURGS
TESTIHOHT-‘AtSO
YALKS
COWSfDtRBD
1
XfL8 AND
HOST
CODB
UAL? AT A
COllSISt8~T
6602,YAStAAlTfW
UNDtR l.A.
Ott3 OUT AND
THK
ABOV8 IS
OF
RATIRO.
01
ftlPAIRH8RT
AIROBICS,
SHE
O?
PAC8. ALL
MILD DtOR88
Df3ABILITX
TBB DYSPLASIA
102
CONSIDIRID
CAT800RT IV
A
DISA81LITT.
THB
SIIPARATIILX
CKRVIX IS A
UN?ITTIPC
CATBOORT III
CORDITIOW~~TXA
OR
CONTRIBUTIMO'~"T
COUDITXOB
,
.
4
.
,
.
.
.
.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06414-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 February 2002. 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 probable...
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-00018
Separation Date: 20060127 The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the VASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. Accordingly, the Board recommended your separation be re-characterized to reflect disability retirement, rather than separation with severance pay.I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board.
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00108
Based upon the lack of episodes during the last twelve months of service, the Board considered the appropriate rating to be 0% at the time of separation. The Board therefore has no basis for recommending any additional unfitting conditions for separation rating. I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board.
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01920
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. There is no evidence in this case that OSA was associated with any functional impairment that was not corrected by CPAP. I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board.
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01438
SEPARATION DATE: 20020121 The Board’s role is thus confined to the review of medical records and all evidence at hand to assess the fairness of PEB rating determinations, compared to VASRD standards, based on ratable severity at the time of separation; and, to review those fitness determinations within its scope (as elaborated above) consistent with performance-based criteria in evidence at separation.The Board acknowledges the CI’s information regarding the significant impairment with...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02987-03
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 August 2003. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. concurred with the rationale of the hearing panel of the Physical Evaluation Board that considered your case on17 September 2002. The member is V.A.
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 01324
Asthma Condition . VASRD §4.97 defines both PFT-derived criteria and clinical treatment criteria for rating under 6602.The remoteness of the available VA C&P examination justifies probative value given to the MEB examination and its single PFT obtained three months prior to separation. 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...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01970
RATING COMPARISON : Service IPEB – Dated 20050708VA -(7 Mos. Physical Disability Board of Review I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board.
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02407
SEPARATION DATE: 20050608 The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the VASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. Accordingly, the Board recommended your separation be re-characterized to reflect disability retirement, rather than separation with severance pay.I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board.
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-02369
SEPARATION DATE: 20051011 Asthma Condition . 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 asthma condition, the Board unanimously recommends a disability rating of 30%, coded 6602 IAW VASRD §4.100.In the matter of the contended allergic rhinitis, migraine...