DEPARTMENTOFTHE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
JRE
Docket No: 4726-02
10 September 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
session, considered your application on 5 September 2002. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance ‘with administrative regulations and procedures
applicable to the proceedings of this 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 Specialty Leader for Pulmonary Medicine
dated 25 July 2002, a copy of which is attached.
Documentary material considered by the Board
in executive
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. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained
in the advisory opinion. 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.
important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.
In this regard, it is
.
.
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 NAVY
NATIONAL NAVAL MEDICAL CENTER
BETHESDA. MARYLAND
20689-5600
PULMONARY
IN
REPI’+ REFER TO
From:
To:
Subj
:
Encl:
Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
(1) BNCR File
(2) Service Record
25 July 2002
ION IN THE CASE
Per your request, enclosure (1) was reviewed. The medical record provided indicated
as seen at Naval Hospital Great Lakes on 26 Jan 2000. At that evaluation
1.
that
he indicated that he was unable to pass the PRT on two occasions secondary to wheezing and
had symptoms consistent with asthma including dsypnea, chest pain, and wheezing triggered by
exposure to cold air and exercise, He denied a history of recent
and cause transient airway hyper-reactivity. He also noticed problems breathing that limited
activity during high school softball.
URI that might mimic asthma
Pulmonary function studies obtained during the
2.
airway obstruction with reversibility post bronchodilator therapy. These findings and the history
are strongly consistent with asthma.
l/26/02 evaluation showed mild
The evaluation provided b
3.
The PRT dates shows an 8% increase in FEV, post bronchodilator, which would be unusual in a
normal subject. In addition the lung function percent predicted by the subject’s physician was
incorrect. The pulmonary function lab used a height of seventy-two inches and a weight of two
hundred sixty six pounds, different from the height and weight used by Great Lakes and reported
by the patient in his letter.
physician does not exclude asthma.
In my opinion, the patient likely has mild asthma. The history and evaluation
4.
strongly support asthma. There is nothing in the information provided that would suggest the
diagnosis is in error. I would strongly recommend that no modification be made to the discharge
records and that the diagnosis of asthma not be ammended.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05535-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 December 2001. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Specialty Advisor for Pulmonary Medicine dated 6 September 2001, a copy of which is attached. The information provided in the physical examination and medical record is not sufficient to conclusively establish the diagnosis of asthma in this patient, however it does appear...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00898
VASRD §4.97 rating criteria for asthma are based on the number and severity of clinical exacerbations; the type and the frequency of medications used to treat the condition; and PFT values for FEV1 and FEV1/FVC ratio. It is noted that the VA subsumed any asthma rating in the overall OSA rating, although the VA rating decision stated “the examiner did not note any compensable level of disability due to your mild persistent asthma.” After considerable deliberation, members agreed [member...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | NC9807325
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 TRG Docket No: 7325-98 16 July 1999 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF 4% Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the United States Navy filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that her reenlistment code be changed. Based on the doctors...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Thu Sep 21 09_16_49 CDT 2000
c. age 20. doctor notes that “this condition was not correctable to meet Navy standards” and recommended administrative separation. Therefore, the Board concludes that the RE-4 Additionally, there is no However, the Board This code will alert recruiters that 2 The Board further concludes that this Report of Proceedings should be filed in Petitioner’s naval record so that all future reviewers will be aware of the diagnosis of asthma and understand the reason for the change in the...
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-00712
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. RATING COMPARISON : ServiceIPEB – Dated 20071023VA Based on Service Treatment Records(STR)ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Asthma…660210%Asthma660210%STROther x 0 (Not In Scope)Other x 0 RATING: 10%RATING: 10%Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD)dated...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02461
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEWNAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX CASE: PD-2013-02461BRANCH OF SERVICE: AIR FORCE BOARD DATE: 20140724 SEPARATION DATE: 20050914 The next higher rating of 30% requires FEV-1 of 56% to 70% or FEV-1/FVC of 56%to 70% on PFT; or daily inhalational or oral bronchodilator therapy; or inhalational anti-inflammatory (steroid) medication.The VA coded the lung condition analogous to chronic bronchitisas 6600 rated at 30% citing an FEV-1 of 60% from the PFT...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01552
The service treatment record (STR) initially reflected that the CI wasbeing worked-up for a respiratory condition noting the first of many spirometry/pulmonary function tests (PFTs) dated 28 August 2002. The CI was never placed on oral corticosteroids; therefore, Board members deliberated if the CI’s condition supported the 30% criteria level.Clearly, the final pulmonology report noted no use of medication for the previous “several months.”Additionally, the post-separation VA examination...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01265
SEPARATION DATE: 20040730 The examiner noted the CI had difficulty breathing (especially with running) despite Albuterol inhaler use. RECOMMENDATION : The Board recommends that the CI’s prior determination be modified as follows, and that the discharge with severance pay be recharacterized to reflect permanent disability retirement effective the date of medical separation:
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01634
She sought care in Sep 03 and was diagnosed with asthma based on clinical history and PFTs showing mild obstruction to airflow and response to treatment with bronchodilator. Medical standards for continued military duty indicate that asthma, recurrent bronchospasm, or reactive airway disease, unless due to well- defined avoidable precipitant cause is disqualifying for worldwide duty. A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01757
The IPEB reviewed his case and found the member fit and recommended, "Return to Duty." BCMR Medical Consultant's complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and stated he sought a second opinion by pulmonologist in December 2005 and was diagnosed with asthma after having below normal pulmonary function tests. In this respect, the Board notes...