DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
JRE
Docket No: 3613-02
7 October 2002
Dear Mr.
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.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application& 3 October 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, and it affirmed its previous decision to deny your request.
You were assigned a reenlistment code of RE-4 because your were discharged for failing to
meet procurement medical/fitness standards.
proper, even though you were not diagnosed with or treated for Osgood-Schlatter
prior to enlisting in the Navy, and had passed a pre-enlistment physical examination.
The Board determined that your discharge was
’s disease
It
concluded that you bear the responsibility for the early termination of your enlistment and the
assignment of an unfavorable reenlistment code.
lhat your Navy and
civilian medical records indicate you had a four-year history of right knee pain.
civilian providers referred to the symptoms of Osgood-Schlatter ’s disease you experienced in
the Navy as “the current episode ”, from which it can be inferred that there was at least one
prior episode. The Board concluded that had you disclosed your history of knee pain during
the course of your pre-enlistment physical examination, it is likely that the disqualifying
condition would have been diagnosed, and your enlistment deferred, thereby preserving
scarce Navy resources.
One of your
As it did during its initial review of your request, the Board concluded that your present state
of health and physical fitness, and your desire to reenlist in the Navy, are insufficient to
warrant changing the basis for your discharge or assigning you a more favorable reenlistment
code.
would be permitted to reenlist once your knee had been rehabilitated.
It rejected your unsubstantiated contention to the effect that you were told that you
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.
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.
In this regard, it is
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01985
RATING COMPARISON : Service IPEB – Dated 20050224VA -Based on Service Treatment Records(STR)ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Chronic Bilateral Knee Pain Secondary To Osgood-Schlatter Disease5099-50030%Osgood-Schlatter Disease, Left Knee5299-526010%STROsgood-Schlatter Disease, Right Knee5299-526010%STROther Conditions in Scope x 0Other x 6 Combined: 0%Combined: 20%Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD)dated 20050526 ( most proximate to date of separation [DOS]). BOARD FINDINGS :...
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-01261
The PEB adjudicated the patellofemoral syndrome bilateral as unfitting, rated 10%, with application the Veterans’ Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The PEB on 9 October 2002, three months prior to separation, found patellofemoral syndrome, bilateral, unfitting, coded 5299-5003 (arthritis, degenerative) with a rating of 10%. The VA rationale noted that the ratings were non-compensable because the C&P examination documented full ROM without pain, no instability and...
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD 2014 01960
A left knee X-rayfor chronic left knee pain was normal. VASRD §4.71a specifies for 5003 that “satisfactory evidence of painful motion” constitutes limitations of motion and specifies application of a 10% rating “for each such major joint or group of minor joints affected by limitation of motion.” The left knee condition could not be reasonably rated higher than 10% using any exam proximate to separation or any alternate coding schema.While the VA exam is approximately 5 years remote from...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00045
Right Knee Condition . Any impairment from Osgood-Schlatter’s or knee pain of the right knee was considered above. Right Knee Chondromalacia5009-500310% COMBINED10% ______________________________________________________________________________
USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500954
The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). As the representative, we ask that consideration be given to equitable relief, as this is a matter that involves a determination whether a discharge should be changed under the equity standards, to include any issue upon which the Applicant submits to the Board’s discretionary authority, under SECNAVIST 5420.174D. I thought it would get...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002104C070206
In the applicant’s case the Board must consider whether the VA ratings for the applicant’s ankles, knees and back are combat related. At that time it was stated that the applicant’s back pain had been documented since 1977. Based on this chronological review of the treatment the applicant received for his VA rated disabilities, it is evident that the applicant submitted insufficient evidence to show: a. that his shoulder pain should be approved for CRSC.
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 00916
“Bilateral Osgood-Schlatter’s disease, status post tibial tubercle excisions, moderate was forwarded by them MEB as unfitting to the PEB IAW AR 40-501.”Low back pain (LBP), dorsal wrist ganglion, mild and hypothyroidism, moderate conditions, identified in the rating chart below, were also identified and forwarded by the MEB. The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) adjudicated the bilateral knee conditions as unfitting, rated 0%, withlikely application of Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140009467
The applicant states, in effect: * he injured his knee while in training and received surgery * he participated in physical therapy and tried to rehabilitate his knee * despite his efforts, he was referred to the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) and went through a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) * he was medically discharged, but the reason shown on his DD Form 214 is wrong * the PEB gave him a 0 percent disability rating and found that his...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03930
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted into the Regular Air Force on 5 Jul 11. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 00944
VA*CodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Chronic Left Ankle and Knee Pain 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.As discussed above, PEB reliance on the USAPDA pain policy for rating the left ankle and knee conditions was operant in this case and the condition was adjudicated...