DEPARTMENTOFTHE NAV
Y
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No. 02436-03
29 August 2003
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 28 August 2003.
Your allegations of error
and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Board.
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 consisted
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.
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon
request.
The names and
The Board found that you underwent a pre-separation physical
examination on 17 May 1999,
for separation,
experiencing lower back and right leg pain, which had been
diagnosed as atypical sciatica and possible degenerative disc
disease.
As you were about to depart on terminal leave, you
notwithstanding the fact that you were
and were found physically qualified
L3-4 level; circumferential bulging of the
thecal sac without impingement of the L5 nerve root; and a
apparently elected to undergo an MRI examination in order to
document the condition of your spine.
The results of the MRI
indicated that you had no bulging,
extrusion or protrusion at
the
the
large right paracentral extrusion at the
compromising the right foramina,
nerve root.
indicates that you were going on terminal leave, and would
follow-up with the Department of Veterans Affairs.
voluntarily released from active duty on 20 June 1999, and
assigned a reenlistment code of
eligible and recommended for reenlistment.
A note at the bottom of the MRI "wet read" report
with impingement on the
RE-lA, to indicate that you were
L5-Sl level
annulus indenting
You were
Sl
You stated that your
you were able to perform your
You were found to have good range of
On 21 June 1999, based on a review of your service medical
records, the VA assigned you a 10% rating for a herniated
nucleus pulposus at the
LS-Sl level, based on the mild symptoms
of intervertebral disc syndrome reflected in those records. You
were examined at a VA facility on 15 July 1999. You reported
that despite your back symptoms,
duties as an EMT for two ambulance companies, which involved
lifting heavy stretchers.
You also stated that your back was
very sore by the end of a day at work, but you did not report
any gait disturbance.
spinal motion, with slight sensory deficit.
you underwent an examination in connection with your request for
an increased VA disability rating.
condition had been aggravated on 6 September 1999.
that you had played golf that day,
then went home and watched television.
up from the floor because of back pain,
right lower extremity.
underwent a hemilaminectomy with discectomy at the
9 September 1999.
cleared to return to work on 1 November 1999.
convalescent rating of 100%
from 5 September to 1 November 1999;
thereafter, a 40% rating was assigned, based on your report that
your back pain had become more severe, and was constant.
rating was confirmed on 12 June 2000,
examination conducted on 1 June 2000.
you complained of continued pain and fatigue, and stated that
you had missed three days of work because of your symptoms.
reported that you could stand and sit for two to three hours,
walk five miles a day,
and climb and descend stairs without
problems.
medications, use a brace, or apply heat or cold.
2002, the rating was increased to 60% based on an increase in
which you did every day, and
You were unable to get
which radiated to the
based on the results of an
During that examination,
In addition, you stated you did not take any
You did well post-surgically, and were
You were brought to a hospital, and
That
You
L4-5 level on
You received a
On 5 October 1999,
You reported
On 28 January
your symptoms, and a 10% rating was added for a scar at the site
of your back surgery.
individual unemployability.
On 26 March 2002, you were granted
The Board noted that in order for a service member who has not
completed twenty years of active duty service to be retired by
reason of physical disability,
he must be unfit for duty because
of a condition or conditions ratable at 30% or higher.
Although
you had symptoms of spinal pathology prior to your release from
it does not appear that you were unfit for duty at
active duty,
that time. As noted above, you received a reenlistment code of
RE-lA, which indicates that you could have reenlisted and
remained on active duty had you wanted you.
apparently stable for several months following your release from
active duty, and you were able to engage in strenuous physical
activities during that period.
severity of your condition that occurred after you were released
from active duty, and particularly after you underwent surgery,
is a matter within the purview of the VA, rather than the
Department of the Navy.
The unfortunate increase in
Your condition was
In view of the foregoing, your application has been denied.
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such
that favorable action cannot be taken.
the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and
material evidence or other matter not previously considered by
the Board.
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.
You are entitled to have
In this regard,
Sincerely,
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00525
CI CONTENTION : The CI states: ‘VA rated disability at 40% Service connection on May 28, 1997 and considered me unemployable on 4-22-04 for the back condition military discharged me with at 10%. Follow-up for back pain. The frequency and severity of the CI’s back pain and radicular pain increased significantly during his time on TDRL and this was consistent with the increasing severity of degenerative disc disease and herniated discs with impingement on the right S1 nerve root documented...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01425
Anesthesia consult pain clinic.”The CI underwent back surgery on 20 December 2002, 4 months after separation to decompress the left S1 nerve root. The CI noted constant lower back and “radicular pain of the left lower extremity extending to the foot, as well as paresthesias of the left foot only with stress,” the NARSUM noted some motor weakness in the left quadriceps (L4-5) and the neurosurgical note of 20 December 2002 stated “intractable left lower extremity pain” as the basis for going...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02301
The VA increased their radiculopathy rating, but maintained the 40% back rating until a subsequent exam in 2012 led to a decreased spine rating of 20%. RECOMMENDATION : The Board recommends that the CI’s prior determination be modified as follows; and, that the discharge with severance pay be recharacterized to reflect permanent disability retirement, effective as of the date of his prior medical separation: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX President Physical Disability Board of Review
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 00609
The FPEB adjudicated the previous conditions as it had before (chronic LBP and saphenous nerve palsy, left as unfitting, rating 20% and 0% respectively) and also adjudicated “Left knee pain due to retropatellar pain syndrome” as unfitting and rated at 0%. The VA coded the condition 8727 and rated 10%. Under the authority of Title 10, United States Code, section 1554(a), I approve the enclosed recommendation of the Department of Defense Physical Disability Board of Review (DoD PDBR)...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01806
No other conditions were submitted by the MEB.The Informal PEB adjudicated “L5-S1 radiculopathy with EMG evidence of active denervation and mild abnormality of the right peroneal nerve”as unfitting, rated 20%, citing criteria of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD).The CI made no appeals and was medically separated. The MEB NARSUM diagnosis was L5-S1 radiculopathy with active denervation (on EMG) due to degenerative disc and joint disease of the lumbar spine.The neurology...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01435
No physical examination findings were documented. Although the DA 199 mentioned characteristic pain on motion, which supports a 10% disability rating using either the 2003 or the current VASRD, the PEB assigned a 0% rating.The VA determined that neither the back pain nor the left leg radiculopathy was service-connected or service aggravated. Physical Disability Board of Review
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD 2014 01909
The left leg condition, characterized as “post-surgical S1 nerve root impingement causing radiculopathy with weakness in left leg and foot” by the MEB, was forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AFI 48-123. The Board directed attention to its rating recommendationbased on the above evidence.The PEB adjudicated the left S1 radiculopathy secondary to L5-S1disk herniation status-post left L5 hemilaminectomy and L5-S1 micro-diskectomy condition as unfitting with a disability...
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00383
The Board notes that the CI contends that the left lower radiculopathy, abnormal MRI and EMC/NCV were overlooked by the PEB. An exam at a pain clinic, three weeks later, showed normal sensory and motor exams with normal deep tendon reflexes. I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board.
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 01637
The InformalPEBadjudicated “C4-5 herniated nucleus pulposus and C6-C7 bulge with early myelopathy, status post foraminotomy, Aug 2000,” as unfitting, rated at 10%,with application of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD).The CI non-concurred with the IPEB findings/recommendations, and requested Formal PEB (FPEB), who re-adjudicated the CI’s neck condition increasing the rating from 10% to 20%.The CI non-concurred with the FPEB findings/recommendations further appealed to the Air...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03215-01
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. THE PEB RECORD REVIEW PANEL CAMP CONSIDERED THE CASE ON 18 NOVEMBER 1996 AND FOUND THE MEMBER UNFIT UNDER V.A. THE MEMBER .