DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
ANNEX
NAVY
2
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
S
JRE
Docket No: 3513-00
24 January 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
session, considered your application on 12 January 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. In addition, the Board
considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Director, Naval Council of Personnel
Boards. dated 30 October 2001, a copy of which is attached, and the comments of your
counsel.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, a three-member panel of
the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of
probable material error or injustice.
In this connection, the Board substantially concurred
with the comments contained in the advisory opinion, and unanimously voted to deny your
request for correction of your record to show that you were retired by reason of physical
disability. One member of the Board recommended that your record be corrected to show
that you were transferred to the Fleet Reserve under the Temporary Early Retirement
Authority. The remaining two members of the panel did not concur with that
recommendation.
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
Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE
NAV Y
NAVAL COUNCIL OF PERSONNEL BOARDS
720
KENNON STREET SE STE 309
WASHINGTON NAVY YARD DC 20374-5023
5420
Ser:
30
INREPLYREFERTO
01-25
Ott 01
From:
To:
Subj:
Ref:
Director,
Executive Director,
Naval Council of Personnel Boards
Board for Corrections of Naval Records
REQ
OF
(a) Your
(b) SECNAVINST
1850.4D
ltr JRE:jdh Docket No.:
THE CASE
03513-00 of 21 Jun 01
This letter responds to Petitioner's request for correction
1.
of his naval records as found in reference (a).
contends he should have received a disability rating prior to his
discharge from the naval service.
The Petitioner
The Petitioner's case history, contained in reference
2.
was thoroughly reviewed in accordance with reference
returned.
The following comments are provided:
(a),
(b) and is
a.
The Petitioner was discharged from the U.S. Navy on 27
January 1998 after
Petitioner was discharged he was medically evaluated and his case
was reviewed by the Physical Evaluation Board.
him fit for duty.
17 years of active duty service.
The Board found
Before the
b.
On 27 August 1998,
he suffered a heart attack. He
filed a claim with the Department of Veterans Affairs
was subsequently rated at 60%
for arteriosclerotic heart disease.
(DVA) and
C .
The Petitioner believes he is entitled to disability
retirement pay and benefits from the Navy because he believes his
condition existed prior to his discharge.
placed on the Permanent Disability Retirement List
60% disability rating for the arteriosclerotic heart disease.
He has requested to be
(PDRL) with a
d.
The documentation of functional impairment while on
active duty in the Petitioner's medical record is largely
confined to his limitations on the Physical Readiness Test
and his inability to deploy.
(PRT)
e.
Cardiac evaluations, including a cardiac
nuclear/sustamibi scan,
performed while the Petitioner was on
active duty indicated no significant coronary vessel compromise.
f.
While on active duty the Petitioner was medically
advised to improve his cardiac
exercise,
weight reduction and
health risk factors through
smoking interdiction.
Subj:
REQUEST
OF
FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE CASE
9.
The Petitioner did not suffer his
"heart attack" (acute
inferolateral/posterior
months after his discharge from the service.
myocardial infarction') until over seven
In summary,
there is insufficient evidence in this member's
3.
file to justify granting the Petitioner's request for a
retrospective PEB finding of unfit and a disability rating. He
was fit for duty when he was discharged from the service.
is a distinction between suitability for duty and fitness for
duty.
The Petitioner may not have been able to perform the PRT
or deploy (issues of suitability), but this does not affect the
fact he was fit for duty.
recommended for the Petitioner's record.
no changes are
Accordingly,
There
2
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...
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00022
The PEB found the arteriosclerotic heart disease unfitting, and rated it 10% IAW the Veterans’ Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). After heart attack #5 I was told that because I could not deploy I was now considered a liability to the Army. I was told that continuation of service to fulfill my 20 yrs.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 06398-04
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval records be corrected to show that he was retired by reason of physical disability, vice discharged for failing to reenlist.2 The Board, consisting of Messrslreviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 28 July 2005, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 06938-04
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEXWASHINGTON DC 2O37O-5100JREDocket No. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval recordS be corrected to show that he was retired by reason of physical disability, vice discharged for failing to reenlist.2 The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00191
It, and any other conditions or contention not requested in this application, or otherwise outside the Board’s defined scope of review, remain eligible for future consideration by the Board for Correction of Military Records.In accordance with DoDI 6040.44, the Board’s authority is limited to making recommendations on correcting disability determinations. Under the authority of Title 10, United States Code, section 1554(a), I approve the enclosed recommendation of the Department of Defense...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05132-00
The member had a board of flight surgeons in disability from the VA for a "spinal disc but the member complained of It must be noted The member appealed that The member has been The member testified that all his fitness reports were in the top 1% until he stopped drilling in March 1997. that his cessation of drilling status was secondary to his neck surgery. during which time the member was not on active duty in This is consistent with the member's having been there was no opportunity for...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03077
Although service connection has been established by the DVA and the applicant has reportedly been awarded a disability rating of 100 percent, there is no compelling evidence the applicant’s arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) prevented him from reasonably performing the duties of his office, grade, rank and rating during the period of his military service and at the time of his retirement. Nonetheless, acknowledgment of the radiographic evidence of the ASCVD prior to the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014250
The applicant requests, in effect, an increase of his Army disability ratings for his pulmonary conditions (Sleep Apnea with Emphysema and Coronary Artery Disease) awarded by his Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). f. The PEB found his medical conditions following medical conditions met retention standards and were not listed in the physical profile: g. The PEB recommended he be separated for permanent disability retirement with a combined rating of 70%. f. Four electrocardiograms, dated 9...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-00323
DPPD states his service medical record, DVA records and personnel records show his arteriosclerotic heart disease is not combat related. Although his training preceded the onset of the acute heart attack, heart attack is an expected consequence of the natural progression of atherosclerotic coronary artery disease that was established in the applicant prior to the training and would have occurred regardless of the period of training. The Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606092C070209
The applicant requests that his honorable discharge with Special Separation Benefits (SSB) be corrected to a medical retirement. The Surgeon General continues that the applicant had been declared fit for duty by cardiology 5 months prior to his separation with diagnoses of one vessel coronary artery disease (not significant), hyper-cholesterolemia, and non-cardiac chest pain. Also in the processing of this request an advisory opinion was obtained from the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA)...