DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
JRE
Docket No: 6507-00
5 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 30 August 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 you were the subject of a medical evaluation board (MEB) on 25
pes planovalgus foot type,
February 1998. You were given a diagnosis of symptomatic
existed prior to enlistment (EPTE), not service aggravated, and referred to the Physical
Evaluation Board. On 17 April 1998, the Record Review Panel of the Physical Evaluation
Board determined that you were fit for duty notwithstanding the MEB diagnosis. The
Physical Evaluation Board reconsidered and confirmed its findings on 11 June 1998. On 16
June 1998, the Director, Naval Council of Personnel Boards, denied your request for a
formal hearing. You were released from active duty on 20 October 1999, by reason of
completion of required active service. On 14 June 2000, the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) awarded you 10% ratings for conditions of each of your feet, and 30% for obstructive
sleep apnea. The latter rating was based on your history of sleep apnea, and subjective
complaint of excessive daytime somnolence.
The Board noted that the VA must rate all conditions it classifies as “service connected”,
i.e., incurred in or aggravated by military service, without regard to the issue of fitness for
military service. The military departments, however, may assign disability ratings only in
those cases where the service member has been found unfit to perform the duties of his
office, grade, rank or rating by reason of physical disability. As you have not demonstrated
that the conditions of your feet or the sleep apnea rendered you unfit for service, there is no
basis for granting your request. 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
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-00927
CI CONTENTION : “I would like to PDBR to consider all conditions in my PEB/MEB as being unfitting for Military duty and rated accordingly.” The CI also attached 18 pages to his application which was reviewed by the Board and considered in its recommendations. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00860-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 April 200 1. 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...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00509
An IPEB dated 7 April 2008 adjudicated “bilateral lower leg pain with CS as unfitting rated 21% (including bilateral factor) with application of the DoDI 1332.39 and VASRD. The left leg examination was normal and without pain. The Board determined therefore that none of the stated conditions were subject to service disability rating.
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00935
The PEB combined the MEB referred conditions of FM and bilateral plantar fasciitis and pes cavus and rated them as one unfitting condition of FM coded at 5025, specified by the VASRD as “with widespread musculoskeletal pain and tender points, with or without associated fatigue, sleep disturbance, stiffness, paresthesia, headaches, irritable bowel symptoms, depression, anxiety, or Raynaud’s-like symptoms.” The PEB cited avoidance of pyramiding IAW VASRD §4.14 for not rating the plantar...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00076
The CI had excessive daytime sleepiness and was diagnosed with OSA requiring CPAP as noted above. Right Knee Condition . The 5 months after separation VA exam, demonstrated ‘tender patella tendon, tender patella rub, prominent tibial tubercle; no instability.’ History on both exams noted increased pain with activity, walking and standing, but did not indicate painful motion, or pain-limited motion of the knee.
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00925
ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Bilateral Hammer Toe Deformities52820%Bilateral Pes Planus w/ Bilateral Plantar Fasciitis S/P Bilateral Hammer Toe Repair of 2 nd , 3 rd and 4 th Toes527610%20070103Moderate Flat FootCat II↓No Additional MEB/PEB Entries↓Thoracolumbar Strain; DDD L5-S1523720%20070103Right Shoulder Strain5299- 502410%20070103Left Shoulder Strain5299-502410%20070103GERD and Hiatal Hernia734610%20070103Tinnitus626010%200701030% x 2 / Not Service Connected x 120070103...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-00410
Bilateral Leg Pain Condition. On examination, he was noted to have normal ROM and that there was no tenderness. RECOMMENDATION: The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no recharacterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination, as follows: UNFITTING CONDITION VASRD CODE RATING 5299‐5237 5099‐5022 5299‐5276 COMBINED 10% 10% ‐‐‐ 20% MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, US Army Physical Disability Agency 5 PD12‐00410 Low Back Pain Bilateral Leg Pain Bilateral Pes Planus The...
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD 2014 00341
The MEB forwarded “sleep apnea requiring CPAP” condition as “not meeting retention standards” to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501. In addition, the CI was notified by the Army that his case may be eligible for review of the military disability evaluation of his mental health (MH) condition in accordance with Secretary of Defense directive for a comprehensive review of Service members who were referred to a disability evaluation process between 11 September 2001 and 30 April...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05506-00
In addition, the VA rates all conditions it classifies as “service connected", without regard to the issue of fitness for military service, and ratings may be raised or lowered throughout a veteran’s life time as the degree of severity of the rated conditions changes. The VA awarded you a 50% rating, while classifying your condition as "mild". 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 | CY2013 | PD-2013-02693
The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of theVeterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. Chronic Neck Pain . The commander’s statement made no mention that the sleep apnea interfered with the CI performing his MOS duties.The MEB examiner mentioned that the sleep apnea condition was controlled with use of a...