DEPARTMENTOFTHENAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2
NAVY
ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
Docket No: 7613-01
17 December 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 12 December 2002. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures
applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the 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 26 August 2002, a copy of which is attached, and the comments of your counsel.
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 the advisory opinion. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained
Xn this connection,
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be
taken. You are entitled to have the
Roard reconsider its decision upon submission of new and
material evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board. In this regard, it is
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.
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAW
NAVAL COUNCIL OF PERSONNEL BOARDS
WASHINGTON NAW YARD
720
KENNON STREET SE RM 309
WASHINGTON. DC 203746023
1N
REPLY
REFER
TO
522 0
Ser:
02-1 3
26 Aug 0 2
From:
To:
Director,
Executive Director,
Records
Naval Council of Personnel Boards
Board for Corrections of Naval
Subj:
REQUEST
FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE CASE
Ref:
(a) Your ltr JRE:jdh Docket No: 7613-01 of 23 Jul 02
(b) SECNAVINST
1850.4E
1. This letter responds to reference (a) which requested
comments and a recommendation regarding Petitioner's request for
correction of her naval records.
from the U.S.
Petitioner contends her medical condition warranted a disability
rating and should have been the basis of her discharge.
Veterans Administration (VA) has granted the Petitioner a
disability rating of 100%.
Navy without any disability rating.
The Petitioner was discharged
The
The
The Petitioner's case history,
2.
was thoroughly reviewed in accordance with reference (b) and is
returned.
The following comments are provided:
contained in reference (a),
a.
The Petitioner was originally separated from the Navy
at her own request as a result of financial hardship.
Petitioner and her husband had enlisted together and felt as
though they were misinformed regarding monetary compensation.
The
b.
During the Petitioner's short naval service she
bilateral tendonitis and an inability
complained of knee pain,
to cope with naval lifestyle.
record suggests the combination of physical therapy and limited
shipboard duty had produced sufficient improvement that no
medical board was contemplated.
offered the opportunity to remain on active duty to continue
physical therapy.
She refused the continued physical therapy.
Prior to her discharge she was
The available active duty health
C .
On 15 September 2000,
a routine Separation Physical
Exam was performed prior to her discharge.
appears to have been considered relatively benign and not
disqualifying.
Her condition
Subj:
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE CASE
OF FORMER
d.
The VA awarded the Petitioner a disability rating of
This disability rating is contrary to the results of the
100%.
15 September 2000 separation physical examination.
decision was based on a December 2000 VA examination that
documented largely subjective complaints of ankle and foot pain.
The rating awarded by the VA is roughly equivalent to that for
bilateral above the knee leg amputations.
The VA rating
suggests a largely unexplained deterioration in the Petitioner's
condition between the 15 September 2000 exam and the VA's exam
in December of 2000.
The VA's
In summary,
3.
the Petitioner any relief despite her reported subjective
distress.
the evidence is inadequate to warrant granting
2
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-00580
The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) adjudicated the bilateral knee condition as unfitting, rated 0% with application of the US Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) pain policy. (2) is limited to those conditions which were determined by the PEB to be specifically unfitting for continued military service; or, when requested by the CI, those condition(s) identified but not determined to be unfitting by the PEB. The ratings for the unfitting bilateral retro-patellar pain syndrome...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02210
Bilateral Knee Pain Condition . The CI continued with left knee pain and was seen by physical therapy (PT) for an evaluation. I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board.
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00193
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) adjudicated the bilateral knee pain condition as unfitting, rated 0%, with application of the US Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) pain policy. In the matter of the bilateral knee condition, the Board unanimously recommends a disability rating of 10%, coded 5099-5019 IAW VASRD §4.71a.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05936-00
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 JRE Docket No: 5936-00 18 June 2001
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00225
There were no clinical records or VA C&P examinations proximate to TDRL exit in evidence. The CI was not tender on examination and subsequent neurological examinations were normal and also documented normal gait and posture. Again, there was no proximate C&P examination to TDRL exit, but the gait and posture were noted as normal on a 2010 neurology examination.
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01512
The leg, hipand knee conditions, characterized as “bilateral shin splints,” “right tibial plafond stress reaction,” “bilateral femoral stress reactions,” and “left greater trochanteric bursitis & PFPS [patellofemoral pain syndrome],” were forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW SECNAVINST 1850.4E. Bilateral Leg PainCondition (includes Bilateral Shin Splints,Bilateral Femoral Stress Reactions, Left Greater Trochanteric Bursitis, and Left PFPS) :The narrative summary, 4 months...
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-01153
I currently have to take pain medication often on a regular basis over the years for pain from my condition. Right Knee Condition . The Board notes that the MEB and initial VA C&P exams bracket the date of separation.
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD 2013 00654
To date, both ankles continue to click and swell as well as both knees. Bilateral knee ROM was noted as approximately 0-130 degrees.At the VA Compensation and Pension examinationperformed 5 months after separation, the CI reported right greater than left knee pain and weakness. RECOMMENDATION : The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no re-characterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination.
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-01476
The PEB adjudicated the chronic right anterior knee pain, rated as slight condition as unfitting, rated 10% with application of the US Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) pain policy. The CI was seen by orthopedics for the constant right knee pain with running in September 1993. RECOMMENDATION: The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no recharacterization of the CIs disability and separation determination, as follows: UNFITTING CONDITION VASRD CODE RATING Chronic Right...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01856
There is insufficient evidence to support a finding of not unfitting for either knee.Therefore, it is reasonably justified that the CI be found unfit for continued military service in her MOS due to her left and right anterior knee pain with patellar crepitus and patellar apprehension condition. However, there is no evidence of any further examination in the record. Providing a correction to the individual’s separation document showing that the individual was separated by reason of...