DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
JRE
Docket No:
20 August 2001
5933-00
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, in which you requested that
you be awarded a 30% disability rating for post traumatic stress disorder.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 26 July 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.
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 8 June 1998, the Physical Evaluation Board
preliminary finding that you were fit for duty. You rejected that finding, and requested
reconsideration. The PEB reconsidered and adhered to its initial finding. On 27 July 1998,
your request for a formal hearing was denied. You were discharged from the Marine Corps
on 6 November 1998, at the completion of your required active service. You were assigned
a reenlistment code of RE-1 A, to indicate that you were qualified and recommended for
reenlistment.
(PEB) made a
The fact that you have been awarded a Department of Veterans
for post traumatic stress disorder was not considered probative of the existence of error or
injustice in your record.
conditions it classifies as “service connected”, without regard to the issue of fitness to
perform military duty. The military departments, however, are only permitted to rate those
conditions which render a service member unfit for duty. As you have not demonstrated that
In this regard, it noted that the VA assigns disability ratings to
Affairs(VA) disability rating
you were unfit for duty at the time of your discharge from the Marine Corps, the Board was
unable to recommend any corrective action in your case. Accordingly, 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 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 | 05183-99
__-.. ._ ’ , MSC, USN, dtd 21 Ott 98 found.the member fit for duty on - PEB Case File - Additional Medical Evidence - Service - Memo from - PRT Folder A medical board was held at on 14 January 1998 with diagnoses of: Chronic Low Back Pain (7242) 1. question is not whether the member's performance is "sub-optimal", but rather whether her performance meets required Navy standards. evaluations up through July 1997, which reflect that the member has always performed at or above standard.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07685-00
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. Several other conditions and ratings were added over the next eight your current VA rating is 1998. the VA awards disability ratings without regard to the issue of fitness for military duty, whereas the military departments may assign ratings only in those cases where the service member In...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09521-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 July 2009. Your receipt of disability ratings from the VA for numerous conditions that were not evaluated or rated by the PEB is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record because the VA assigned those ratings without regard to the issue of your fitness for military duty, and you have not demonstrated that any of those conditions...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00216-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 October 2001. consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, limited portions of your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The Board was not persuaded that you suffered from post traumatic stress disorder in 1945 that you were unfit for duty in 1950 because of a disability which was incurred...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02561-98
The fact that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) granted you service connection for post traumatic stress disorder in 1997, effective from 23 August 1994, was not considered probative of error or injustice in your naval record. prior to your discharge were related to a personality disorder, which is a condition not covered by the military disability evaluation system, rather than a physical disability. It appears likely that the diagnosis made with all information would be PTSD and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07721-09
You had no military status during the period from 26 June 1979 to 19 December 1988. , The Board considered your application and all pertinent records in accordance with the provisions of SECNAV Instruction 5420.193, enclosure (1), Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (codified at 32 CFR 723), paragraph 3e. During the 1979-1989 period, you received treatment from VA health care providers for multiple conditions such as hip, back and knee pain, chronic recurrent foot pain,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03536-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 February 2011. The Board found that your receipt of disability ratings from the VA is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your Marine Corps record, because the VA assigned those ratings without regard to the issue of your fitness for military duty on 27 May 2007. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00171-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 February 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ali 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 | CY2009 | PD2009-00429
Examinations from May 2005 by a civilian neurologist show difficulty with right foot dorsiflexion, a lot of pain laterally on the leg from the knee down, especially on the foot with any tactile stimuli or with movement. The VA rated the CI’s disability under a peripheral neuropathy code but included the functional motor loss and therefore was not limited to rating the disability at the moderate level. The CI had motor weakness most likely due to pain documented on multiple examinations as...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00470
The principle of rating all mental health symptoms under the predominate diagnosis is endorsed and there is no evidence in the record that CI's impairment due to different diagnoses can be specifically separated. The LCSW noted a decrease in panic attacks to 1x/week, and the VA noted that the CI had self-discontinued medications as not helping and making him feel worse and noted impaired interpersonal interactions. The Board determined that at the time of separation, the CI's clinical...