DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No: 5271-01
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 in executive
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 Director, Naval Council of Personnel Boards
dated 2 July 2002, a copy of
Documentary material considered by the Board
yhich is attached.
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
NAVAL COUNCIL OF PERSONNEL BOARDS
WASHINGTON NAVY YARD
KENNON STREET SE RM 309
720
WASHINGTON, DC 20374-5023
TO
IN REPLY REFER
522 0
Ser:
2 Jul 02
02-11
From:
To:
Subj:
Ref:
Director,
Executive Director,
Records
Naval Council of Personnel Boards
Board for Corrections of Naval
RE
OF
(a) Your
(b) SECNAVINST
1850.4E
ltr JR:jdh Docket No: 05271-01 of 28 May 02
This letter responds to reference (a) which requested
1 .
comments and a recommendation regarding Petitioner's request for
1 September 1971, the
correction of his naval records.
Petitioner was placed on the TDRL with a 40% disability rating.
He was later placed on the PDRL with the same disability rating.
The Petitioner is requesting a retroactive disability rating
increase based on non-rated medical conditions that he claims
developed as a result of his service.
On
The Petitioner's case history, contained in reference (a),
(b)
2.
was thoroughly reviewed in accordance with reference
returned.
The following comments are provided:
and is
a.
The Petitioner appears
to be requesting a retrospective
additional disability rating for diabetes mellitus and a left
The Petitioner developed
lower lobe pulmonary resection.
Diabetes Mellitus after his active duty service and placement on
He contends this condition resulted from damage to
the TDRL.
his pancreas incident to an abdominal gunshot wound he suffered
during combat service in Vietnam.
on an undocumented contention that he underwent an excision of
the lower lobe of his left lung while on active duty.
He is also basing his request
b.
There are no specific references to either condition in
the health record material submitted.
damage to the Petitioner's pancreas failed to produce an
unfitting diabetic condition while he remained on active duty or
on the TDRL.
complicated the Petitioner's post-operative recovery
sufficiently to warrant mention in his health record.
A pancreatic injury would have ordinarily
It appears that any
It is
W
Subj: R
0
possible that a post-traumatic diabetes mellitus could
potentially form the basis
disability by the DVA,
to support granting any additional disability rating for this
condition by the Navy.
for a ratable service connected
but there is insufficient documentation
C .
The Petitioner's health record does refer to some
including a left lower lobe pneumonia in April
early in his active duty service.
pulmonary issues,
1961,
with the Petitioner's placement on the TDRL did include a 30%
disability rating for a
segment would not have qualified.
"lobectomy"
eligibility for a rating.
is essential for evaluating the Petitioner's
Documentation of the
"lobectomy".
Loss of a partial lobe or
The VASRD contemporary
In summary,
the basis for which the Petitioner was rated and
There is insufficient documentation that either of
3 .
the disability rating at the time of his discharge was
appropriate.
the Petitioner's conditions.,
left lower lobe pulmonary resection, existed at the time of his
placement on the TDRL or at the time of his subsequent transfer
to the PDRL.
reconsideration would be appropriate.
it is highly
his petition should be denied.
recommended that the Petitioner apply to the Department of
Veterans Affairs for consideration of service connection for his
claim.
If evidence of the above conditions exist,
post-traumatic diabetes mellitus or
Accordingly,
However,
at this time
2
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00007
The CI was then medically separated with a 10% combined disability rating. In addition, the CI requests review of the PEB's findings regarding his Sleep Apnea and an award of a 50% rating for this condition.” The contentions discuss decreased work capacity (estimated METS indicating under 11-14 ml/kg/min O2) and lung function (DLCO) parameters for VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) rating other than lung volumes and flows (FEV-1 or FEV-1/FVC). Other PEB Condition .
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06977-01
” The Board noted that it is the function of an MEB, which is composed entirely of physicians, to report on the state of health of the service member who is the subject of the MEB, and to recommend referral of the member to the PEB in appropriate cases. In reference to the question of why Petitioner's cardiac and pulmonary conditions found not unfitting at the time of his initial PEB adjudication and placement on the TDRL, reference Petitioner's original 14 February 1992 Medical Evaluation...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00376
With initiation of insulin treatment, the CI's blood sugar levels were 90's to 160's with no episodes of hypoglycemia, as per medical record documentation immediately prior to placement on TDRL. The Board also considered the condition of Bilateral Lower Extremity Peripheral Neuropathy at the CI’s request. When determining the final and permanent disability rating, the Board must evaluate the CI’s condition at the time of separation from the TDRL in 2008.
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-01031
Although the 40% rating was not supported by the evidence of the service treatment record, the PEB placed the CI on the TDRL with a rating of 40%. The PEB concluded the diabetes unfitting for continued military service and adjudicated a permanent 20% rating. Both at the time of placement on the TDRL and at the time of permanent disability disposition and removal from the TDRL, the CI’s diabetes was treated with diet and medication (an oral medication and insulin) meeting the VASRD criteria...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00070
Chest Pain Rating . The Board considered whether to re-adjudicate the underlying chest pathology as separately unfitting, especially considering the possibility of pulmonary compromise ratable at 10% from the pre-separation PFT’s. IAW §4.3 of the VASRD (reasonable doubt), therefore, the Board decided by a 2:1 vote that the scar code was indicated as an addition to the separation rating.
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02326
He denied hospitalization for diabetes or diabetic complications and had a full-time job.At a C&P exam on 13 June 2007(14 months after TDRL placement) the CI reported that if “he runs or does any type of activities he will have hypoglycemia.” He therefore restricted his activities. The Board directs attention to its rating recommendationbased on the above evidence.Both at the time of placement on the TDRL and at the time of permanent disability disposition and removal from the TDRL, the...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00736
At the time of TDRL reevaluation nearly three years later, the Informal PEB adjudicated a permanent 20% rating for diabetes mellitus type 1, rated 20%. The Board thus has no basis for recommending any additional unfitting conditions for separation rating. Exhibit C. Department of Veterans' Affairs Treatment Record.
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00398
After re-evaluation in August 2007, a third Informal PEB followed by a Formal PEB (Nov 2007) determined the CI should be separated at 20% disability for Type 1 Diabetes using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Ratings Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Navy and Department of Defense regulations. The VA also rated the CI’s diabetes at 20% after an evaluation in 2004 and documented out that regulation of activities as defined by the VASRD was not required. There is no evidence that any...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00624
The MEB found his Type 1 diabetes medically unacceptable, and referred him to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). A higher rating of 60% would require “insulin, restricted diet, and regulation of activities with episodes of ketoacidosis or hypoglycemic reactions requiring one or two hospitalizations per year or twice a month visits to a diabetic care provider, plus complications that would not be compensable if separately evaluated.” Since the treatment record does not show sufficient...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00663
Although the pulmonary scans and pulmonary hypertension were improving, the CI had continued shortness of breath and had a diagnosis of chronic thromboembolic disease. The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) adjudicated primary hypercoagulable state, on lifelong anticoagulation condition as unfitting (with contributing category II chronic thromboembolic disease and venous stasis) and the CI was rated at 40% and placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL). Exhibit C. Department of...