DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2
NAVY
ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
Docket No: 6862-02
20 December 2002
From: Chairman,
To:
Secretary of the Navy
Board for Correction of Naval Records
Subj
:
Ref:
Encl:
FORMER
REVIEW OF NAVAL
RECORD
(a) 10
USC. 1552
(1) DD Form 149
(2) Subject’s naval record
1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner,
filed enclosure
(I) with this Board requesting, in effect, that her naval record be corrected to
show that she was discharged by reason of Secretarial Authority, and assigned a reenlistment
code of RE-1.
Board, consisting of Messrs. Grover, Neuschafer and Pauling, reviewed Petitioner’s
2. The
allegations of error and injustice on 12 December
2002 and, pursuant to its regulations,
determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available
evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the
enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner’s allegations
of error and injustice
finds as follows:
a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies
available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy.
b. Enclosure (1) was filed in a timely manner.
c. Petitioner underwent a pre-enlistment physical examination on 16 March 2001. She
planus, which was not symptomatic. She denied a history of
was noted to have moderate pes
foot pain and orthotic use. She enlisted on 29 October 2001, and served until 23 January
2002, when she was discharged for failing to meet procurement medical fitness standards
because of painful feet, and assigned a reenlistment code of RE-4. The discharge was based
on her disclosure of a previously concealed eight year history of foot pain, which had
increased with military training, and precluded her from completing training. She was
discharged without objection from her.
/
d.. Counsel contends, in effect, that Petitioner was found fit for enlistment, and that she
was, in fact, fit for service. He questions the accuracy of Petitioner ’s statement concerning
her long history of pre-service foot pain, given her age (18) when she made the statement.
He maintains that there was no therapy or attempt to remediate the problem. He presents
evidence from a physician to the effect that Petitioner has “relaxed pronated feet ”, rather than
planus”, which can be improved with the use of orthotic devices. He contends that
“true pes
it is fundamentally unfair to preclude future military service based on a one time diagnosis,
and even more unfair where the regulation contemplates some form of therapy and none was
provided her.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concluded that
Petitioner’s separation was proper. Available records indicate that she was prescribed
medication for her condition, and was given exercises to ameliorate her condition. Those
measures failed, and her discharge was warranted. Contrary to counsel
noted to have pes
planus during examinations conducted both before and after she enlisted.
Had she been truthful when undergoing her pre-enlistment examination, it is unlikely she
would have been permitted to reenlist. The difference between
planus” and “relaxed
pronated feet ” is insignificant, especially given her medical expert ’s comment that he
condition became symptomatic “only after long periods of standing, walking or running ”, all
of which are, of course, required of military trainees. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
Board does not feel that it is fair for her to be stigmatized by a reenlistment code of RE-r.
Accordingly, it recommends the following corrective action.
’s assertion, she was
“pes
RECOMMENDATION:
a. That Petitioner ’s naval record be corrected to show that she was assigned a
RE-3E, vice the code of RE-4 she received on 23 January 2002.
reenlistment code of
b. That so much of Petitioner ’s request for correction of her naval record as exceeds
the foregoing be denied.
c. That a copy of this Report of Proceedings be filed in Petitioner ’s naval record.
4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(c)) it is certified that a quorum was
present at the Board ’s review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete
record of the Board ’s proceedings in the above entitled matter.
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Recorder
Acting Recorder
:’/
5. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section 6(e) of the revised Procedures of
the Board for correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(e))
and having assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby announced that the foregoing
corrective action, taken under the authority of reference (a), has been approved by the Board
on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01752
The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. Over several months she noted improvement with Zoloft, which when discontinued in December1998, she again became depressedand it was reintroduced.In June 1999, she became overwhelmed by a move to a new duty station and...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00636
Bilateral Foot Condition . Secondly, the congenital pes planus condition itself was not service-aggravated; rather, the painful complications of plantar fasciitis and/or tendinitis were the service-acquired and unfitting conditions (e.g., subject to disability rating). In the matter of the bilateral plantar fasciitis condition, the Board unanimously recommends that each foot be separately adjudicated as follows: an unfitting right plantar fasciitis condition coded 5399-5310 and rated 10%;...
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-00184
The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of theVeterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. Post-Separation)ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Chronic Pain Bilateral Thighs, Ankles, and Feet5099-500310%Chronic Right Ankle Sprain…527110%20061107Chronic Left Ankle Sprain…527110%20061107Bilateral Pes...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00592
The CI was referred to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), determined unfit for the Sinus Tarsi Syndrome condition, and separated at 10% disability using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Naval and Department of Defense regulations. The CI was separated on 20020814 for Sinus Tarsi Syndrome with chronic bilateral foot and ankle pain rated analogously as code 5279, Metatarsalgia, anterior, (Morton’s Disease), unilateral or bilateral, which assigns...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01675
It is limited to those conditions determined by the PEB to be unfitting for continued military service and those conditions identified but not determined to be unfitting by the PEB, when specifically requested by the CI. Back pain, along with foot pain, was mentioned in a sick call note in 1999, although the entry elaborated only the foot complaint. An individual with a complaint of chronic low back pain, a normal objective examination, and normal objective testing is normally not referred...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01772
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX CASE: PD‐2013‐01772 BRANCH OF SERVICE: NAVY BOARD DATE: 20140624 SEPARATION DATE: 20040525 invalid font number 31506 SUMMARYOFCASE :...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01998
Pain medication required.” *VARD dated 25 July 2008 rated Posterior Tibial Tendonitis, right ankle 10% using code 5271 effective 24 March 2008 and Posterior Tibial Tendonitis, left ankle 10% using code 5271 effective 24 March 2008 and retained a 30% rating using code 5299-5276 for bilateral pes planus and plantar fasciitis (previously evaluated as posterior tibial tendon dysfunction bilaterally, plantar fasciitis bilaterally) ANALYSIS SUMMARY :The Board acknowledges the CI’s information...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 01314
RATING COMPARISON: Service FPEB Dated 20020205 VA Exam (one day pre-sep) All Effective Date 20020426 Condition Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam RUQ Pain 8799-8719 10% Abdominal Adhesions w/ Chronic Abdominal Pain 8799-8719 10% 20020424 Plantar Fasciitis, Heel Spurs with Right Calcaneous Stress Fracture 5099-5022 0% B/L Pes Planus w/ B/L Plantar Fasciitis 5276 10% 20020424 B/L Heel Spurs 5015 10% 20020424 Mild Stress Incontinence Not Unfitting Stress...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01894
CI CONTENTION : “Medical Board combined Right and Left conditions as one and left off pes planus from diagnostic evaluation. All members agreed, however, that separate ratings (unilateral or bilateral) under separate codes was not compliant with VASRD §4.14 (avoidance of pyramiding), which specifies that “the evaluation of the same manifestation under different diagnoses are to be avoided.” Specifically a separate compensable rating for pes planus, as contended by the CI and conferred by...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00287
The PEB combined back pain, right knee pain and left knee pain as a single unfitting condition, coded analogously to 5003 and rated 0%. It was concluded, however, that the normal ROM documented by the MEB and the minimally impaired ROMs (without painful motion) documented on the post-separation VA C&P examination would not support application of that code; and, furthermore, would not justify a compensable rating if it were applied. In the matter of the back and left knee condition, the...