DEPARTMENTOFTHE NAV
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
Y
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
JRE
Docket No: 7396-01
17 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 OR 22 August 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.
Documentary material considered by the Board
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 on 14 September 1994, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB)
determined that you were unfit for duty because of a recurrent pituitary tumor, rated at 60%.
An organic mood disorder, depressed, was classified as a condition which contributed to your
unfitness, but was separately ratable, and migraine headaches and galactorrhea and
oligomenorrhea. You accepted those findings, and were transferred to the Temporary
Disability Retired List. On 29 September 1998, the PEB made preliminary findings that you
lo%, and it elevated the
remained unfit for duty because of the pituitary tumor, rated at
adjustment disorder to a category I, unfitting condition, which it rated at 30%. The other
conditions noted above were classified as not unfitting or ratable. The findings of the PEB
were mailed to you on or about 8 October 1998, and received by your agent.
make a timely response to the notification, you case was finalized on 14 December 1998, and
you were permanently retired with a combined rating of 40%.
Affairs (VA) rated your mood disorder at 10% and the pituitary tumor at
December 1994, and the
the mood disorder was increased to 30% effective 20 July 1998, and for the headaches to
,from 1
mi&-aine headaches at 10% from 27 March 1997. The rating for
20%,
.As you did not
The Department of Veterans
30% from 23 March 1999.
conditions not considered by the PEB.
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.
were mild, and that the remaining conditions were not unfitting or ratable. It noted that
although the VA must rate all conditions it classifies as
departments are permitted to rate only those conditions which render the service member unfit
for duty.
It concluded that the symptoms residual to the tumor
“service connected”, the military
In view of the foregoing, 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.
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.
In this regard, it is
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00154
The IPEB noted that since her medical condition was a result of an accident (injury) that was determined to be not in the line of duty, her medical condition was not compensable under the provisions of military disability law/policy. Even if the applicant’s tumor existed prior to the accident, there is a preponderance of evidence that supports the finding that the accident caused the hemorrhaging of the tumor. In the applicant's case, the Air Force considered her hypothyroidism,...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00432
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW The CI appealed to the Formal PEB (FPEB) who considered expert specialty opinion that the migraines were not related to the pituitary microadenoma and rated the unfitting migraine headache condition at 10%, with application of the US Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) pain policy. Migraine Headaches .
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000798
An MFR, dated 11 October 2011, from the staff psychiatrist at the U.S. Army Medical Department Activity stated the applicant had been diagnosed with depression and depression due to a general medical condition. The MEB found the applicant's following conditions as medically acceptable: * ankylosing spondylitis * depression 7. ___________x_____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military...
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01598
SEPARATION DATE: 20081107 The CI was also diagnosed with an adjustment disorder and a personality disorder that the PEB “found to be not compensable, although they may be administratively unfitting.” This case is eligible for review under the stipulations of the MH and Review Program as elaborated in the Scope above and, in accordance with VASRD 4.130 (mental disorders), only one disability rating may be provided for MH (except eating disorders) based upon total social and occupational...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120011839
The applicant provides: * DA Form 199 (PEB Proceedings), dated 12 January 2005 * Letter from the VA Maryland Health Care System * DA Form 3947 (MEB Proceedings) * Waiver of Rights to Election, dated 14 February 2005 * Letter from the U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA), dated 12 January 2005 * Letter from the PEBLO, dated 4 January 2005 * Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) Psychiatric TDRL Evaluation, dated 27 December 2004 * WRAMC Neurology Clinic TDRL Examination,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04548-00
As noted by diagnosis of migraine that in itself is not synonymous with disability the member's headaches are "generally not Even stipulating arguendo that the member has a headaches the evaluating physician, incapacitating and she is able to continue working through the pain." The member also testified that No one has found any reason for The member has had a CBC, bone panel, HLAB-27, all of which have been within normal limits The member has had two epidural injections 5/5 in all muscle...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140008865
The applicant provides copies * Active Duty (AD) orders, dated 22 November 2003, with an amendment * Orders releasing her from AD, dated 6 January 2005 * DA Form 2173 (Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status), dated 21 January 2005, with 3 administrative processing pages * Medical Eligibility Verification report * Periodic Health Assessment, 8 pages * DA Forms 3349 (Physical Profile), dated 29 November 2011 and 15 February 2012 * Functional Capacity Certificate Form 507, dated 30...
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00317
The severity of the CI’s symptoms at the time of the MEB psychiatric NARSUM three months prior to separation was documented as moderate by the examiner. He denied suicidal ideation, but had thoughts of hurting others. Pre-separation documentation records satisfactory performance of duties, and VA evidence 11 to 15 months post-separation reflects status as a full-time student (the later C&P examination in December 2008 documented CI report of difficulties with school due to his symptoms).
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00066
The CI was medically separated with a 10% disability rating. In the matter of the right arm and leg weakness conditions, migraine headache condition, vascular dementia and mood disorder condition, the Board unanimously agrees that it cannot recommend a finding of unfit for additional rating at separation. I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069837C070402
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests...