DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
ARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

Docket No: 6411-01
17 December 2002

This is in reference to your
provisions of title 10 of the

@cation for correction of your naval record pursuant to the
nited States Code, section 1552.

th
A three-member panel of 
session, considered your  
ap
injustice were reviewed in a
applicable to the proceedings
consisted of your application
naval record and applicable 
s
considered the advisory 
opirr
dated 15 July 2002 and the 
I:
2002, and your response  
ther

After careful and conscientio
accept your contention to the
0
your request for correction 
your case could be fairly rev
authorize a hearing. The Bo
establish the existence of pro
substantially concurred with  
Director, Naval Council of P
d
unfit by reason of physical 
to the Fleet Reserve, or that
recommending that you be 
re
reason of physical disability.

i

&u-d for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
cation on 12 December 2002. Your allegations of error and
ordance with administrative regulations and procedures
If this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board
together with all material submitted in support thereof, your
ttutes, regulations and policies. 
Ins furnished by the Director, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery
rector, Naval Council of Personnel Boards dated 22 
to. A copy of each opinion is attached.

In addition, the Board

October

s consideration of the entire record, the Board was unable to
:ffect that a hearing was necessary for the proper resolution of
your record.
It concluded that the facts and issues present in
:wed in an executive session of the Board, and it declined to
:d determined that the evidence submitted was insufficient to
tile material error or injustice. In this connection, it Board
ie comments contained in the advisory opinion from the
rsonnel Boards. The Board was not persuaded that you were
ability at the time of your release from active duty and transfer
our release was erroneous.
tored to active duty, promoted to commander, or retired by

find no basis for

It could 

Your contentions to the 
effec
disability had your completed
timely manner, and that whil

I1
e

that you would have been retired by reason of physical
the Comprehensive Clinical Evaluation Program  
on terminal leave, you were forced to resign. from a civilian

&r a more

position because of your
action in your case. As n
which is a prerequisite to
Similarly, the fact th
service in the Persian
to “uncertain agents ” in
activ
of your release from
your condition which
purview of the Departm
Navy. As you may kn
fitness for military duty
cases where the service
presumption of fitness,

disorder were considered insufficient to warrant any corrective
ove, you have not demonstrated that you were unfit for duty,

isability separation or retirement of a service member.
ffer from conditions which had their onset following your

hich a physician strongly suspects are due to your exposure
war, do not demonstrate that you were unfit for duty at the time
uty. The issue of disability compensation for the deterioration of

red following your release from active duty is a matter within the
of Veterans Affairs (VA), rather than the Department of the

e VA awards disability ratings without regard to the issue of
reas the military departments may assign ratings only in those
er has been found unfit for duty, and has overcome the

In view of the foregoing,
members of the panel will

our application has been denied.

furnished upon request.

The names and votes of the

It is regretted that the cir
taken. You are entitled t
material evidence or
important to keep in mind
Consequently, when apply
applicant to demonstrate t

stances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be
e the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and
ously considered by the Board. In this regard, it is

t a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.
for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the
xistence  of probable material error or injustice.

Sincerely,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BUREAU OF MEDICINE AND SURGERY

2300 E STREET NW

WASHINGTON DC 20372-5300

IN REPLY  REFER TO

6010
Ser 
15 July 2002

M3F1/018

From:
To:

Subj 

:

Ref:

Director, Burea
Chairman, Boa

of Medicine and Surgery 
for Correction for Naval Records

M3Fl (Code 25)

COMMENTS,

m RECOMMENDATIONS ICO

,.

(a) 
(b) 

Letter,Chai
SECNAVl?

nan Board of Correction for Naval Records Dated 5 July 2002
1T 

1850.4E

Encl:

(1)  Medical 

ret

rds of 

w

1. As requested  in refere
Corrections regarding his

:e (a) we have reviewed
scharge from the United States Navy.

’ letter to the Board of

2.
’ medic,
obstructive sleep apnea re
septoplasty and two turbir
problems limited his abili
physically qualified for re
‘-_“‘egan  to 
increasin
These medical problems i
an8
in concentration, poor 
depression and urinary 
inc
Center have extensively 
w
the cause of his problems.

3. Because
for determination whether
m
compensation. Since 
ref (b), we recommend 
th:

records document multiple medical problems including a history of
liring the following surgeries: uvulapalatopharyngoplasty,
te resections prior to his retirement. Although these medical
to function in the operational environment,
‘ement by the Naval Hospital Jacksonville.
y experience medical problems that effected all areas of his life.
:luded: chronic fatigue, recurrent headaches, memory loss, difficulties
- management, anxiety, dysphonea, anxiety, joint and muscle pain,
ntinence. The Veterans Administration and the Gulf War Health
rked up these multiple medical problems without definitely defining

was found “fit” for retirement, his case was not referred to the PEB
r not he was eligible for medical retirement or disability

’ medical conditions did not meet retention criteria listed in

his case be referred to the PEB for review.

4. Enclosure one is return
opportunity to review this

1 for appropriate administrative action. Thank you for the
lost interesting case.

DEPARTMENTOFTHE NAVY
NAVAL COUNCIL OF PERSONNEL BOARDS

WASHINGTON NAW YARD
KENNON  STREET SE RM 309

720 
WASHINGTON. DC 203744023

IN 

REPLY 

REFER TO

5220
Ser: 02-16
Ott 02
22 

From:
To:

Subj :

Ref :

Director, Na
Executive D i
Records

REQUEST FOR
FORMER@@
OF 

al Council of Personnel  Boards
ector, Board for Corrections of Nava

l

OMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE CASE

ltr
(a) Your
(b) SECNAVIN

 

JRE:jdh Docket No: 64411-01 of 23 Jul 02
T 1850.43

 

This letter re

1.
comments and a
correction of his 
discharged from the
given the opportun
Board (PEB) process

s
reco
n

i

onds to reference (a) which requested
mendation regarding Petitioner's request for
val records.
U.S. Navy and states he should have been
y to go through the Physical Evaluation
prior to his discharge.

The Petitioner was honorably

2.
was thoroughly
returned .

The Petitione
 
The 

r
revi
foil

s case history, contained in reference (a),
(b) and is
wed in accordance with reference  
wing comments are provided:

a.

Despite hav
was able to
by complimentary FI
and was approved by
for a voluntary
  no n
significant medical
Also,
retirement.
reti
Qualified"  for 
Medical Officer fo
u
,
lingering concerns
weeks prior to hi

s

b. Within two
industrial impairme:
was able to maintai
until 26   May  2000 .
evaluate1
monitored, 
(VA) 

.

He requested,

ng developed Chronic Sleep Apnea, LCDR
aintain sufficient functioning as evidenced
REPS through 31 October 1997.
the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (ASN)
medical retirement prior to registration of
concerns over his physical qualification for
fter having been determined "Not Physically
examining
ement in August 1997, LCDR
d him to be "Physically Qualified", with
for retirement on 21 July 1998, about 1.5
etirement.

3ars after retirement, a more significant
: had developed.
B, he
active employment as a High School Instructor
Iis deteriorating clinical situation has been

According to

and rated by the Veterans Administration

,

3.

The following 

i

concluded :

undergone a Medical Evaluation Board
o the PEB during the timeframe of his

the PEB would likely have

to remain in a employed status

records an d
for a n

n

sts that his conditio
PEB to have reflected th
to  overcome the
active duty, and, indeed
finding of Fit

.

e

,

e

t

e

t

Gulf War illness claim is a separate issu
e of a

likely PEB finding of Unfit appears
y office and, thus, bes
to th e appropriat e Bureau of Medicine

s noted that review of th

fails to reveal any Gulf War relate
sed illnesses

.

hronic  Obstructive Sleep Apne

in a progressive impairment of

duty but with significan

d

a

ercome the finding of
ly have rendered had his

o the PEB prior to his July 1998 retirement.
is BCNR petition is warranted.

In the

the issue of Gulf War related

nd ought to be referred to

demonstrated abili

t

-acute,  grave"

referred for commen

In summary,

4.
appears to have

re s

Presumed Fit,
case been referred
Thus the denial of
absence of a  

findin

BUMED and the  VA.

acceleration afte

r

etirement

.

The level of impairment on

2