DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
‘2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370.510
0
JRE
Docket No: 2904-02
8 October 2002
’
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
un 3 October 2002. Your allegations of error and
session, considered your application
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 underwent a pre-enlistment physical examination on 8 April 1998.
You specifically denied a history of asthma, but disclosed a history of a broken arm in 1981,
chicken pox at age 10, and a benign tumor at age 12. You enlisted in the Navy on 11 August
1998. On 4 September 1998, you disclosed your history of asthma. On 8 September 1998,
you reported that you had used a
Ventolin inhaler for asthma from age 2 to 12, with a last
use in 1987. You complained of shortness of breath, wheezing, chest tightness, and pleuritic
pain with exercise.
In addition, you indicated that you participated in high school sports with
the aid of an inhaler. Although the results of spirometry and methacholine challenge testing
were within normal limits, you were found to have clinical evidence of asthma. You were
discharged on 22 September 1998 by reason of your failure to meet procurement
medical/fitness standards, and assigned a reenlistment code of RE-4.
The Board rejected your contention to the effect that you did not make timely disclosure of
your history of asthma because you felt that it was of no relevance when you underwent your
pre-enlistment physical examination, given the remoteness of the history of the condition. In
this regard, it noted that you disclosed a number of conditions with remote histories;
however, none of them was disqualifying for military service, as asthma is. As you have not
demonstrated that your reenlistment code is erroneous or unjust, 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 | CY2004 | 02989-04
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 underwent a pre-separation physical examination on 10 November 1999. You...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07584-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 November 2001. Documentary material considered by the Board 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. You denied a history of asthma and shortness of breath, but disclosed that you had been treated for pneumonia.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07327-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 October 2001. 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. 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 | CY2011 | PD2011-00244
Asthma Condition . FEV1 (% Predicted)113%(VA 70%) 75%FEV1/FVC98.9%67%Medsalbuterol inhaler (as needed, 2-3 x/day); begin budesonide inhaler;budesonide inhaler twice daily, albuterol inhaler (as needed) - 2-3 times per dayfluticasone & salmeterol twice daily, albuterol inhaler … as needed, uses 2x/day if forgets other inhalersSpirometry NotesPositive methacholine challenge; no significant change after bronchodilatorreturned to normal after bronchodilator§4.97 Rating30%30%30%The service...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05535-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 December 2001. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Specialty Advisor for Pulmonary Medicine dated 6 September 2001, a copy of which is attached. The information provided in the physical examination and medical record is not sufficient to conclusively establish the diagnosis of asthma in this patient, however it does appear...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09780-06
A three-member pan~1 of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 November 2006. The member’s medical record and service record were not available for review.After careful review of all the available evidence and based on unanimous opinion, the Formal PEB finds the member is unfit for continued naval service because of physical disability due to BRONCHIAL ASTHMA. He expressed his belief that had he not done so his condition...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07645-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 January 2002. The Board found that you served in the Navy from 8 to 30 July 2000, when you were discharged by reason of erroneous enlistment and assigned a reenlistment code of RE-4. 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 | CY2009 | 05585-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 July 2009. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD 2013 00908
SEPARATION DATE: 20040312 Asthma Condition . The diagnosis in his finding of unfitness for Asthma,VASRD Code 6602, was rated at 30% rather than 10%.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040006217C070208
The board noted that the applicant's childhood medical records contained no documentation of any medical treatment during the year 1999 or any diagnosis of asthma; however, it also noted that he had enrolled in the university in 1999, explaining the absence of [childhood] medical records from 1999 to the present. Whether the doctor got the information from the applicant's records or from the applicant himself, the board stated that the doctor's statements indicated the applicant had...