DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
Docket No:
17 December 2002
4215-02
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 December 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 found that you underwent a pre-enlistment physical examination on 30 June 1997.
You completed a Statement of Medical History on that date in which you denied any history
of treatment or symptoms of a heart condition, palpitations, and shortness of breath. You
enlisted on 18 February 1998. Shortly thereafter, you disclosed a long history of exercise
related chest pain and shortness of breath, which increased with exercise. You were noted to
have a heart murmur as well as an abnormal EKG. You were discharged on 12 March 1998
by reason of your failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards. You were assigned
a reenlistment code of RE-4, as permitted by regulations.
The Board concluded that you were not qualified for enlistment, and would not have been
accepted for enlistment had you not concealed your history of chest pain and shortness of
breath. The statement from your physician dated 21 December 1999 was insufficient to
demonstrate that your discharge was erroneous, because it does not appear that you provided
him with an accurate medical history, and he did not conduct and EKG.
noted on the second page of the statement that you do have a heart murmur, which he
In addition, he
describes as benign and of no clinical significance. The Board was unable to conclude that
you were improperly assigned a reenlistment code of RE-4, or that it would be in the interest
of justice for it to take any action which might facilitate your reenlistment. 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
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00422
The PEB adjudicated the s/p mitral ring repair with post-operative atrial fibrillation on chronic anticoagulation and anti- arrhythmic therapy as unfitting and rated it 0%, with application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). (2) is limited to those conditions which were determined by the PEB to be specifically unfitting for continued military service; or, when requested by the CI, those condition(s) “identified but not determined to be unfitting by the PEB.”...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 00613
SEPARATION DATE: 20030522 The aortic insufficiency (AS) with chest pain syndromewas forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501 and no other conditions were submitted by the MEB.The PEB adjudicated the heart condition as unfitting, rated 10%, with application of the VASRD.The CI made no appeals, and was medically separatedwith thatdisability rating. Providing orders showing that the individual was retired with permanent disability effective the date of the original...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00431-00
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. JUNE 2000 AT BETHESD THE MEMBER APPEARED AT THE HEARING REQUESTING TO BE FOUND UNFIT FOR DUTY AND RETAINED ON THE TDRL AT HER PREVIOUS RATING OF 60% SUPPokT HER REQUEST THE MEMBER PRESENTED UNDER V.A. AFTER CAREFUL REVIEW OF ALL THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE AND BASED ON UNANIMOUS OPINION, THE FORMAL PEB FINDS THE MEMBER...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00927
The PEB adjudicated the history of chest pain with EKG evidence of a septal infarct and sinus arrhythmia condition and the asthma condition as unfitting, rated 0% and 0% respectively, with likely application of DoDI 1332.39 and the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The VA coded the CI’s combined respiratory conditions (asthma and OSA) as 6602-6847 at 50% IAW VASRD §4.96 (a) and stated “The law requires when certain respiratory conditions coexist, a single...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00896
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW BRANCH OF SERVICE: ARMY SEPARATION DATE: 20030512 NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX CASE NUMBER: PD1200896 BOARD DATE: 20130123 SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty, SPC/E-4, (92A/Automated Logistical Specialist), medically separated for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) with chest pain syndrome. The MEB forwarded no other conditions for Physical...
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 | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900225
Although the Applicant provided post-service medical documentation which was consistent with his pre-service medical evaluations, the Board finds it does not mitigate the diagnosis by the military cardiologist at the medical clinic in Great Lakes.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found Pertinent Regulation/Law A. ” Additional Reviews :...
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00979
BAV and chest pain (exertion related) were the only conditions on the MEB’s submission to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). The CI made no appeals and was medically separated with a 10% disability rating. I have reviewed the subject case pursuant to reference (a) and, for the reasons set forth in reference (b), approve the recommendation of the Physical Disability Board of Review Mr. XXXX’s records not be corrected to reflect a change in either his characterization of separation or in...
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01149
The Informal PEB adjudicated “exertional chest pain” as unfitting, rated 10% with likely application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). 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 Board gives consideration to VA evidence, particularly within 12 months of separation, but only to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02904-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive un 3 October 2002. 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 error or injustice.