DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
BOARD
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
S
JRE
Docket NO:
15 February 2002
2290-01
Dear
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 7 February 2002. 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 noted that you had a long history of lower back pain, which was first noted in
1991, and increased in severity after you gave birth in 1994. It does not appear that the
back pain precluded you from performing your duties for any extended period of time during
your enlistment.. You underwent a pre-separation physical examination on 10 and 29
March 1999, and were found physically qualified for separation and to perform the duties of
your rate at sea and on foreign shores. Your back complaints were noted by the examining
physician, as were several other longstanding complaints, but none was considered
disqualifying for further service. You denied having a history or current complaints of
depression or excessive worry or nervous trouble of any sort; however, you did admit that
you had been treated for an unspecified mental condition, which you “would explain.” The
physician did not comment on that disclosure. It appears, however, that you were referring
to the psychological evaluations you had undergone which indicated that you had prominent
maladaptive personality traits. You were discharged from the Navy on 21 July 1999, by
reason of completion of required service, in grade E-4, having completed 10 years, 3 months
and 19 days service. You were assigned a reenlistment code of RE-6. On 28 February
2000, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded you service connection
and.ratings
of 10% for scars, status post excision of fibroadenoma, sacroiliac joint dysfunction, residual
of injury, and psoriasis, for a combined rating of 30%. You were diagnosed as suffering
from depression and a borderline personality disorder on 16 March 2000. On 4 December
2000, the VA granted you service connection and a 30% rating for depression secondary to
sacroiliac joint dysfunction, effective from date of diagnosis.
increased the rating for your sacroiliac joint dysfunction to 40% effective from 22 July 1999.
Your combined evaluation was increased to 50% from 22 July 1999, and 70% from 16
March 2000.
On 22 May 2001, the VA
In this regard, the
In addition, ratings may be assigned, raised, and lowered throughout a
The fact that you have been awarded substantial disability ratings from the VA is not
probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record.
Board noted that the VA assigns disability ratings without regard to the issue of fitness for
military service.
veteran’s lifetime, as new determinations of service connection are made, and the severity of
service connected conditions changes. Unlike the VA, the military departments are permitted
to assign disability ratings only in those cases where the service member has been found unfit
for duty. Ratings are fixed as of the date of separation or permanent retirement. Although
you had a long history of low back pain, that condition did not preclude you from
performing your duties, or render you unfit for duty. It appears that the 40% rating you
ultimately received from the VA for your spinal condition, although made retroactive to
1999, was based in large part on your subjective complaints, rather than objective findings,
and on subjective deterioration of the condition which occurred in the years following your
discharge. The fact that you have recently obtained a more precise diagnosis for your
condition does not demonstrate that you were unfit for duty or otherwise demonstrate that
your discharge was erroneous. There is no indication in available records that you suffered
from a significant depressive disorder during your naval service, or that you were unfit for
duty because of the effects of a ratable mental disorder.
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. 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
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007163
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests correction of her 2004 disability separation to show, in effect: * post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was considered by the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) * her disability rating was increased to 30 percent (30%) or higher * she was medically retired 2. She reenlisted on 8 November 2002, served in Iraq from 21 March to 26 August 2003,...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01719
5292 Spine, limitation of motion of, lumbar The VA rating under 5292 referenced “slightly limited motion of the lumbar spine”, although the evidence cited full ROM. 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.The Board did not surmise from the record or PEB ruling in this case that...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00980
SUMMARY OF CASE : Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty PV/E-2 (42L10 / Administrative Specialist), medically separated for low back pain (LBP) condition. The 20% criteria for the spine allows for rating based on limitation of motion or evidence of muscle spasm that results in an abnormal gait and or abnormal spine contour. The Board recognized the PEB ruling documented muscle spasm, the NARSUM documented an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02529-01
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. DIAGNOSIS NUMBER (2) WAS CONSIDERED A CATEGORY III CONDITION. THE MEMBER APPEARED AT THE HEARING REQUESTING TO BE FOUND UNFIT FOR CONTINUED NAVAL SERVICE WITH DISABILITY RATINGS OF 10% UNDER V.A.
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 00970
Any conditions or contention not requested in this application, or otherwise outside the Boards defined scope of review, remain eligible for future consideration by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. Next the Board considered the application of the VASRD criteria operant at the time of separation and found that the CI best fit a rating of 10% for characteristic pain on motion or for slightly limited ROM. RECOMMENDATION: The Board recommends that the CIs prior...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00937
IAW VASRD §4.71a, the Board must apply separate codes and ratings in its recommendations if compensable ratings for each condition are achieved. The narrative summary (NARSUM) characterized the pain only as “constant low back pain on the left with intermittent flares.” The physical examination documented left sacroiliac joint tenderness, and recorded range-of-motion (ROM) measurements for both the lumbar spine and left hip. Bilateral Knee Condition(s) .
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD 2013 00095
Despite the CI’s remarks of pain during portions of flexion of both knees, the VA C&P noted that examination of his knee on 10 June 2003 “ was grossly unremarkable” the examiner of on to state that the knee examination revealed “ no soft tissue swelling, no point tenderness, or joint effusion and there was no ligamentous instability appreciated.” After due deliberation in consideration of the preponderance of the evidence, the Board concluded there was insufficient cause to recommend a...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00069
CI CONTENTION : The CI states: “I was in the navy for 7 1/2 years and when I faced the PEB board they told me to be separated unfit with a rating of 0% and after filing with the VA they rated me 100% and 50% of that rating was just my back injury and the whole reason for the PEB board where they said i had "unresolved bereavement ,chronic thoracic back pain, upper right quandrant pain", and the "unresolved bereavement" later would be called PTSD by the VA. However, no evidence shows that...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00213
Using an evaluation completed nine months after the time of separation from the Air Force, the Veterans Administration (VA) rated her disability as 6354 Chronic fatigue syndrome with upper airway resistance, angioedema, and vocal cord dysfunction at 20%. She did have one sleep study done in June 2001 that had no evidence of UARS but the literature states that patients with UARS usually have more subtle changes in breathing and do not usually have apnea. I have carefully reviewed the...
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-00417
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. The VA rated the L3 fracture 40% based on the limitation of thoracolumbar motion at the time of the post-separation VA C&P examination and 10% for pelvic fracture based on report of right hip pain at the C&P examination.Service treatment records prior to separation...