DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
NAVY
ANNEX
2
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No. 02927-03
28 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.
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
Your allegations of error
.and
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.
concurred with the rationale of the hearing panel of the
Physical Evaluation Board that considered your case on17
September 2002.
A copy of that rationale is attached.
In this connection,
the Board substantially
In view of the foregoing, your application has been denied.
names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished
upon request.
The
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
You are entitled to have
In this regard,
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,
Executive D
Enclosure
i
OKPB)
26i-6654626
’
‘.4’
‘T-906
P.O04/007 F-50
5
297-w-5044
I.
memba is a 27-year-old
appearance before
The
time of his
the diagnosis:
SSGT,
;i
USMC, with approximately 8 and
medical board at
Beaufort Naval
l/2
years of
Hosp@l on 8 May
service at the
2002
dth
(1) CARDIAC
TWSPLWT.
Inf’om~al
The
continued
V.A. code
PEB considered the case on 12
Jime 2002 and found the member
unfit for
servic&
navztl
70 19. The
because
men@er disagreed with
ofphysical disability that was considered ratable at
thk finding and demanded a formal
30% under
hearing.
earing was conducted on 17 Se
Lieuten
I as Presiding
Officer,
members.
MC, USN, as panel
.
The member appeared
at’the
hea@ng
requesting to be found fit for continued naval service.
member
To support his request
already included in the
medical evidence letters
officer, and a 15
and service records available for review.
the
PEE!
from his
lerter
3mie 200 1
presented testimony,
copies of his health
rqmrd entries not
ease file, a recent
1ett:er
from his transplant surgeon, and
non-
supervis?rs, his commanding
from his
Qansplapt
surgeori. The
officers, a former commanding
member
also made his health
\
unfit
careful
finds the member is
opmion, the
S, Marine Corps because of
an
the U.
cio@ment that the member had
review of all the available evidence and based on unanimous
After
PEB
fo? continued service in
physical disability. The record and evidence presented
idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy of such severity that he required a heart
2001. Although he has had an outstanding recovery with excellent exercise tolerance, he
requires
tr~lant. This
surgeon indicates he cannot be exposed
prolonged exposures to
.
.
areas
performance of required military duties.
#iant
member more susceptible to infections.
extremes of heat and cold, This
Prograft, and Cellcept ‘to prevent rejection of the
chronic treatment with
.to extreme conditions
capabrlrty, which interferes with the adequate
other pollutants or
transplant in April
the member ’s
&dnisone,
of.dust and
makes the
algo limits
X’he letter
Formal
_.
fi-om his transplant
sM
The record documents an exercise
Protocol Exercise Stress
appropriaterly rated under
T&t. The member is
V.A. code 70 19 at the
modified
Rrucs
condition is
;1X1ost
toler6nce to 18 minutes 41 seconds on a
asymptorr!@c. Therefore,, the
spe
ifie# minimum
‘i
fating of 30%.
The disability is not considered
stabilized, and
plac&reut on the
TRRL is
most appropriate.
The disabling condition is
not
considered
combal?related.
Bslcl
(I)
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 03040-03
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 August 2003. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. concurred with the rationale of the hearing panel of the Physical Evaluation Board that considered your case on 15 August 1991. 5255 FOR THE LEFT FEMUR FRACTURE WITH RESIDUAL IMPAIRMENT IN THE HIP AND KNEE.
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 .
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02043-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 October injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. CODE 5294, 10% UNDER CODE 8520, AND 10% UNDER CODE 65 19 FOR A TOTAL RATING OF 34% ROUNDED TO 30% FOR THE DIAGNOSES: USN(RET) WITH ABOUT 5 AND TDRL ON 24 FEBRUARY 1995 ‘/2 YEARS OF (2) STATUS POST LEFT RADIUS FRACTURE WITH...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01934
On 23 January 2003 after considering the applicant’s rebuttal, the Secretary of the Air Force directed that the applicant’s name be removed from the TDRL and that he be permanently retired because of physical disability at a disability rating of 30%. ____________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPD recommends denial of the applicant’s request. DPPD states the applicant’s request to be returned to active duty cannot be honored in that he has...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00352
However, upon reconsideration with further evidence from the Senior Medical Board Orthopedic Surgeon the PEB determined the CI was unfit and he was then separated with a 10% disability for 5299-5003 Medial Meniscus Transplant using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Ratings Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Navy and Department of Defense regulations. The VA does not seem to understand this procedure as well due the fact the VA rates my right knee as an ACL replacement, meniscal repair...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01011-02
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps dated 28 February 2001, a copy of which is attached. With regard to the issue of your disability rating, the Board concurred with the rationale of the hearing panel of the Physical Evaluation Board which considered your case on 9 December 1998. 1011-00 Reference (a) requests an advisory opinion on petition to correct his record to show t tired by reason of physical disability in the E-8 pay grade.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00105-97
NCPB LEGAL OPINION SUBJ: BCNR ISSUES ICO 8 Dee 98 Address Petitioner's contentions concerning his entitlement 1. to disability rating for his conditions and particularly his contention that the PEB is required to rate all conditions which contribute to an unfitting condition. CODE UNFIT FOR DUTY WITH A 302 7319, V.A. CODE TOTAL RATING TXE TEMPoRAB~ 0~ DLBABrLITY so#, A ND CAbE RETIREMENT AVAILABLE TO THE PANEL WERE THE F,ILB, EVZDENCE HEALTH: RECOR,D> HEALTH RECORD ENTRIES AND A LETTER...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02529-01
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. DIAGNOSIS NUMBER (2) WAS CONSIDERED A CATEGORY III CONDITION. THE MEMBER APPEARED AT THE HEARING REQUESTING TO BE FOUND UNFIT FOR CONTINUED NAVAL SERVICE WITH DISABILITY RATINGS OF 10% UNDER V.A.
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01691
No other conditions were submitted by the MEB.The informal PEBadjudicated “chronic subjective back pain, without significant neurological abnormality” as unfitting, rated 10%, citing criteria of theUS Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) pain policy and, the CI was medically separated. The NARSUM documents a surgical consultation (not in evidence) with “adamant refusal”; and, there is a medical advisory opinion to the PEB stating “His informed decision is reasonable.” The MEB’s ROM...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00839
The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) adjudicated the LBP as unfitting, rated 10%, with application of the Veteran’s Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The Board’s role is confined to the review of medical records and all evidence at hand to assess the fairness of PEB rating determinations, compared to VASRD standards, based on severity at the time of separation. The Board also considered the VA examination after separation ROM upon which the VA based its 20% rating.