Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 01199-03
Original file (01199-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved
DEPARTMENT OF THE  NAVY 

BOARD  FOR  CORRECTION  OF  NAVAL  RECORDS 

2  N A V Y A N N E X  

WASHINGTON  D C   2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0  

JRE 
Docket No:  1199-03 
18 August 2003 

From:  Chairman, Board  for Correction of Naval Records 
To: 

Secretary of the Navy 

Subj:  FORMER 

Ref: 

(a)  10 U.S.C. 1552 

Encl: 

(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 (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that her naval record be corrected to 
show that  she was  honorably discharged by  reason of physical disability incurred while she 
was entitled to basic pay. 

2.  The Board, consisting of  ~ s
Petitioner's allegations of  error and  injustice on  14 August 2003 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. 

and  Mr. -reviewed 

d m  

l

e

s

.

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 enlisted in the Navy  on 20 March 2002.  She complained of  knee pain of 

two day's duration on  31 March 2002, which  she attributed to a fall on her knees while 
marching.  Her knees remained painful for the remainder of her period of  active service, and 
ultimately she was given a diagnosis of chronic patellofemoral syndrome.  She was separated 
from the Navy  on  11 October 2002 with  a general discharge, by  reason of a condition, not a 
disability, interfering with her performance of  duty.  On  1 April 2003, the Department of 
Veterans Affairs (VA) denied Petitioner's request for service connection for patellofemoral 
syndrome, noting that pain, in and of  itself,  wilhoul obj~tive n l d i d  evidence of  underlying 

disease of  destructive process, is not a disability that warrants service connection. 

CONCLUSION: 

Upon  review and consideration of  all the evidence of  record, the Board was not persuaded 
that  Petitioner was unfit for duty by  reason of  physical disability at the time of  her discharge. 
In  this regard, it notes that her knee condition, although interfering with  her ability to 
perform her duties, was not severe enough to render her unfit for duty. 
concludes that in view of  the early onset of  the condition following her entry on active duty, 
and  the minimal trauma she sustained, she would  not have been entitled to disability benefits 
even if  the condition had been classified as disabling, because it would  have been considered 
developmental in  nature, and not incurred or aggravated while she was entitled to basic pay. 
Accordingly, there is no basis for correcting Petitioner's record to show that  she was 
separated or retired by  reason of  physical disability.  The Board also concludes that as 
Petitioner did  not  receive any disqualifying evaluation  marks during her  brief period of 
service, and committed  no acts of  misconduct resulting in  disciplinary action, she should  have 
been  separated from the Navy  with  an  honorable discharge. 

In  addition, it 

In  view  of  the foregoing, the Board  finds the existence of an  injustice warranting the 
following corrective action. 

RECOMMENDATION: 

a.  That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to  show that  she was  honorably 

discharged from the Navy  on  11 October 2002. 

b.  That so much  of  Petitioner's request for correction of  her naval  record as exceeds 

the foregoing be denied. 

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 enlitled  Inalter. 

ROBERT D.  ZSALMAN 
Recorder 

I ~ c t i n ~  

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. 

Executive Direct 



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04922-00

    Original file (04922-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNE WASHINGTON DC 20370-510 X 0 From: To: Subj : Ref: Encl: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records Secretary of the Navy REVIEW OF NAVAL RE (a) 10 U.S.C. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that her naval record be corrected to show that she was retired by reason of physical disability. She...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00762-02

    Original file (00762-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the rationale of the hearing panel of the Physical Evaluation Board which considered your case on 14 March 2002, a copy of which is attached. 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. It is important to note, contdined in Exhibit for the period March 1999 to March 2000. that this...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01952

    Original file (BC-2003-01952.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Otherwise, a permanent profile change to limit these activities may be considered.” The commander stated in his letter to the Physical Evaluation Board the applicant was assigned to less strenuous duties which did not require prolonged periods of standing, walking or squatting. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, states the applicant was diagnosed with bilateral patellofemoral pain syndrome (chronic...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10018-02

    Original file (10018-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    10018-02 3 October 2003 From: To : Sub j : Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records Secretary of the Navy - FORMER ma-- 315-02-0216; REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected to show that he was restored to active duty to undergo surgical procedures on his spinal column, or, in the alternative, that...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-01153

    Original file (PD2010-01153.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2009 | PD2009-00432

    Original file (PD2009-00432.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    SUMMARY OF CASE : Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty E-4 (SK3, Storekeeper) medically separated from the Navy in 2001. Knee Condition . The Board must apply separate codes and ratings for each joint in its recommendation, since compensable ratings for each knee condition are achieved IAW VASRD §4.71a.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00692

    Original file (PD2009-00692.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    No other conditions were service connected with a compensable rating by the VA within twelve months of separation or contended by the CI. In the matter of any other medical conditions eligible for Board consideration, the Board unanimously agrees that it cannot recommend any findings of unfit for additional rating at separation. I have reviewed the subject case pursuant to reference (a) and, for the reasons set forth in reference (b), approve the recommendation of the Physical Disability...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014525

    Original file (20130014525.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Her medical evaluation board (MEB) noted her conditions of severe pes planus (both feet) and patellofemoral syndrome (both knees). Her records show she was evaluated by an MEB and PEB to determine whether she was fit for duty based on her rank and military specialty. The VA is not required to find unfitness for duty.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014067

    Original file (20140014067.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    She has now been rated at 100% disabled by the VA and her issues now are the same as when she was on active duty. A 29 April 2003 chest x-ray was normal. The applicant had 9 years of active duty in MOS 91B (Medical Specialist).

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00467

    Original file (PD2009-00467.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    The CI was referred to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), determined unfit for continued military service, and separated at 10% disability using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Ratings Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Air Force and Department of Defense regulations. I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board. The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating XXXXXXXXXX be corrected to show that the diagnoses in her...