DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JR E
Docket No: 4399-99
23 March 2001
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 1 March 2001. 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 6 February 1997, the Physical Evaluation Board made preliminary
findings that you were unfit for duty because of chronic low back pain, which it rated at
10%. A septal deviation was classified as not unfitting or contributing to the unfitting back
condition, and.your adjustment disorder with depressed mood and obesity were classified as
conditions which did not constitute a disability. You accepted those findings on 24 February
1997, and you were discharged with entitlement to disability severance pay on 11 April
1997. On 5 December 1997, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded you ratings
of 40% for degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine; 10% for dysthymic disorder; and
0% for four conditions.It denied your request for service connection for eighteen other
conditions.
The Board concluded that your lower back condition was productive of minimal to mild
disability at the time of your discharge, and that the 10% rating assigned by the Navy is a
more accurate reflection of the degree of disability produced by that condition than is the
40% rating assigned by the VA, which was based in large part on your subjective
complaints. In addition, it was not persuaded that you suffered from any other ratable
conditions at that time. 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 | CY2001 | 08089-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 July 2001. Effective 9 March- 1999, the VA awarded you a 20% rating for your lower back condition, 10% for your varicose veins, and 10% for a condition of your cervical spine. 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 | CY2002 | 07396-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application OR 22 August 2002. You also received multiple ratings of 0% and one of 10 % for The Board was not persuaded that your mood disorder was ratable above 30% disabling at the time of your permanent retirement. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00880-00
Sincerely, W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Director -- Enclosure i RATIONALE ON 13 SEPTEMBER 1996, A MEDICAL BOARD WAS CONVENED AT THE NAVAL HOSPITAL, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA IN THE CASE OF THIS 28 YEAR OLD MEMBER WITH THE FOLLOWING DIAGNOSES: (1) CHRONIC INSTABILITY LEFT SHOULDER, 71881 (2) CHRONIC MECHANICAL LOW BACK PAIN, 7242 (3) CHRONIC DEGENERATIVE ARTHRITIS LEFT KNEE, 71598 (4) SUBLUXATION SPONTANEOUS MANDIBLE, 8300 -- THE RECORD REVIEW PANEL OF THE PHYSICAL ON 15 JANUARY...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07711-99
The hearing panel found him unfit for continued naval service, and recommended that he be separated with a 10% rating under VA code 5295. It concludes that the PEB hearing panel gave too much weight to the statement of Dr. , which reflects substantially different In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting corrective action; however, as Petitioner ’s condition was subject to improvement at the time of his separation from the Navy, permanent retirement...
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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02336-00
You were evaluated by a Navy psychiatrist on 11 March 1997, and reported that you felt the Paxil was helping and that you were feeling much better. The increase was based on a report of treatment dated 30 November 1998, and a VA rating examination conducted on 4 May 1999, which indicated your depressive symptoms had increased in severity The Board noted that in order to qualify for disability separation or retirement from the Armed Forces, a service member must be found unfit to perform the...
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.
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,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04809-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 February 2001. Such awards are made without regard to the issue of fitness for military 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08355-01
In this regard, the E3oard noted that the VA assigns disability ratings without regard to the issue of fitness for military duty, whereas the military departments rate only those conditions which render a service member unfit for duty. The Board concluded that had the PEB had found your arthritis to be unfitting as of 1 October 1994, it is unlikely that you would have received a substantial rating for that condition, because substantial deductions would have been taken from the rating for...