DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
JRE
Docket No: 4023-01
19 February 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 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 was not persuaded that you suffered from a seizure disorder prior to your
discharge from the Marine Corps in 1989. It noted that you complained of dizzy spells,
headache, numbness of your tongue and numbness down your left arm on 26 February 1986,
and that your spouse stated that you talked in slow motion. You were not diagnosed as
suffering from a seizure disorder at that time, and there are no documented recurrences of
those phenomena, with the exception of several complaints of dizziness, during the remainder
of your enlistment. There is no indication in the available records that you suffered from
any neurological symptoms which rendered you unfit for duty in 1989, when you were
discharged for mechanical low back pain. The fact that the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) awarded you service connection and a 20% rating for a seizure disorder on 6 February
1992, after you suffered a grand mal seizure in February 1991, was not considered probative
of the existence of error or injustice in your record.
In this regard, the Board noted that the
VA may assign, raise and/or lower disability ratings at any time during a veteran’s life time
for any conditions it classifies as “service connected”, without regard to the issue of fitness
for military duty. The military departments are permitted to rate only those conditions
which render a service member unfit for duty. Ratings are fixed as of the date of separation
or permanent retirement, and may not be raised or lowered at the condition deteriorates or
improves. No condition is unfitting per se, and none is ratable absent a finding of unfitness.
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
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02290-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 February 2002. 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. 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.
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00114
Since the injury he suffered from headaches and one isolated seizure in October 2004. The Board considered at length both the TDRL rating and the final rating recommendations at separation from the TDRL. The VASRD does allow for a 10% rating for the cranial defect and the Board, by simple majority, recommends addition of this condition as unfitting, coded 5296, with a 10% TDRL rating and a 10% final rating.
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00668
Left leg pain and weakness -gives away. All evidence considered there is not reasonable doubt in the CI’s favor supporting addition of the left lower extremity radiculopathy condition as an unfitting condition for separation rating. I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05308-06
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 JRE Docket No. 05308-06 16 July 2007 Dear
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02099-02
*of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive A three-member panel session, considered your application on 29 August 2002. The evidence submitted in support of your application was considered insufficient to demonstrate that you do not suffer from a seizure disorder. 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 | CY2001 | 04265-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 June 2001. On 14 November 1988, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) advised you that it had rated your back condition at 20%, and denied service connection for a psychiatric disorder. 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.
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2012-042
In its rating decision, the DVA noted that a 1988 Medical Board was the only Coast Guard medical record it had pertaining to the applicant. 2009-086, where the Board ruled that “Although the DVA granted the applicant a disability rating for [his condition] this Board has consistently held that a disability rating from the DVA does not by itself establish that the Coast Guard committed an error or injustice by finding the applicant fit for separation.” The JAG stated that in addition to the...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00690
I also had several other medical conditions at the time of being boarded out of the Army. The VA coded 5295 lumbosacral strain analogous to 5292 spine, limitation of motion of, lumbar initially rated at 0% based on the full and pain-free ROM noted on the February 2003 C&P examination. 5292 Spine, limitation of motion of, lumbar:
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00398
CI CONTENTION : The CI states: “I was only rated for Narcolepsy. All evidence considered, there is not reasonable doubt in the CI’s favor supporting recharacterization of the PEB fitness adjudication for the low back pain condition. The C&P examiner stated that the CI was able to perform normal activity during a headache.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07721-09
You had no military status during the period from 26 June 1979 to 19 December 1988. , The Board considered your application and all pertinent records in accordance with the provisions of SECNAV Instruction 5420.193, enclosure (1), Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (codified at 32 CFR 723), paragraph 3e. During the 1979-1989 period, you received treatment from VA health care providers for multiple conditions such as hip, back and knee pain, chronic recurrent foot pain,...