DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No: 7800-00
19 June 2001
Dear Sagas
This is in reference to your request for further consideration of your application for
correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United States
Code, section 1552. You have requested that your record be corrected to show that you
received a disability rating for diabetes mellitus, and that you were retired by reason of
physical disability, vice discharged with entitlement to severance pay.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, reconsidered your application on 14 June 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. In this regard, the Board noted that although you had an elevated serum glucose
level on 3 April 1991, and sugar in a urine specimen given to the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) in September 1992, you did not display any of the characteristic symptoms of
diabetes, such as polyuria, polydipsia, fatigue or weight loss at the time of your discharge
from the Navy, or for several years thereafter. The Board noted that while a history of
diabetes is disqualifying for enlistment in the Armed Forces, it is not necessarily unfitting for
retention on active duty. Although the VA must rate any condition incurred in, aggravated
by, or traceable to a period of military service, or derived therefrom, the military
departments may rate only those conditions which render a service member unfit for duty.
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.
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 | 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 | CY2006 | 07569-06
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 discharged from the Navy on 15 November 1993, in accordance with your...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03956-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 October 2001. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03612-02
consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The PEB noted that your performance of duty was not significantly impaired by the sleep apnea or the other conditions diagnosed by the medical board. 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05983-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 February 2003. As the Department of the Navy is permitted to rate only those conditions which render a service member unfit for duty, 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05589-09
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted o£ your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. As you have not demonstrated that you were unfit for duty on 1 July 1995 because of the back condition and/or the diabetes mellitus, and that you should have received a combined disability rating from the Department of the Navy of 30% or higher, the Board was unable to recommend corrective...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10151-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 May 2009. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05543-00
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. The findings of the PEB were mailed to you at your last On 8 June In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that your condition was ratable at 40% or higher at the time of your discharge, and that you were compliant with medical advice, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05069-02
As you have not demonstrated that your sleep apnea condition was ratable above 10%, or that any of your other conditions rendered you unfit for duty, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action. THE HEARING WAS RECONVENED ON 3 SEPTEMBER 1996 WITH COUNSEL FOR THE MEMBER BUT WITHOUT THE MEMBER BEING PRESENT, AT WHICH TIME ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS SUBMITTED, INCLUDING THE NEUROPSYCHOLOGIC EVALUATION REPORT AND A SHOWERS EVIDENCE LETTER FROM THE MEMBER’S FORMER COMMANDING OFFICER. ...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00133
The CI had additional orthopedic conditions (back, right knee, and right ankle) which were forwarded by the MEB as medically acceptable. The NARSUM, however, specifically states ‘must have access to diabetic diet’ and this requirement is documented in medical profiles and diabetic clinic notes. Other Conditions .