DEPARTMEiJT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2
NAVY
ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No. 03396-03
15 September 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 11 September 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
The Board found that a medical 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.
evaluated you on 28 November 2001.
chronic left knee pain, probable sub-clinical degenerative joint
disease in the knee, and possible recurrent medial meniscus
tear.
The medical board noted that you had declined to undergo
further surgery at that time.
The medical board remarked that
you had pain along the medial joint line, and excellent range of
motion in the knee, with no crepitus, effusion, or radiographic
evidence of obvious arthritis.
On 4 March 2002, the Physical
(PEB) reviewed the medical board report, and
Evaluation Board
determined that you were fit for duty.
On 20 March 2002, the
Naval Medical Center, Portsmouth, Virginia, recommended that you
It gave you diagnoses of
be discharged from the Navy because of your unsuitability for
continued military service due to your longstanding complaint of
pain which did not amount to a physical disability, but was of
such severity as to interfere with your performance of duty. You
were honorably discharged from the Navy on 24 April 2002, by
reason of a condition, not a disability, interfering with your
performance of duty.
The Board was not persuaded that you were unfit for service by
reason of physical disability ratable at or above 30% disabling,
which is the minimum rating necessary for a service member to
qualify for disability retirement.
you had a long history of knee pain,
was not of such a nature or severity as to render you unfit for
duty.
suffered from a condition, not a disability, interfering with
your performance of duty,
that you were fit for duty.
been denied.
will be furnished upon request.
is not inconsistent with the finding
Accordingly, your application has
The Board also concluded that the determination that you
It concluded that although
the underlying condition
The names and votes of the members of the panel
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
it is important to keep in mind that
the Board.
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,
Executive
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02101
The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the VASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. Bilateral Knee Pain Condition . BOARD FINDINGS : IAW DoDI 6040.44, provisions of DoD or Military Department regulations or guidelines relied upon by the PEB will not be considered by the Board to the extent they were inconsistent with the VASRD in effect at the time of...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-01327
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW BRANCH OF SERVICE: NAVY SEPARATION DATE: 20030527 NAME: XX CASE NUMBER: PD1201327 BOARD DATE: 20130206 SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty PO2/E-5 (PH2/Photographer's Mate) medically separated for chondromalacia, right medial femoral condyle and trochlea. There were no other conditions within the Board’s scope of review for consideration. ...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00300
Left Knee Condition . The Board further considered if dual coding of the knee condition was justified, given that there was a history of painful motion and of instability. Other PEB Conditions .
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-01061
The FPEB convened 26 April 2007 and after reviewing newly provided medical documents, adjudicated the right knee chondromalacia osteoarthritis of the medial compartment as unfitting, rated 10% with application of the Veteran’s Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). In January 2005 surgical arthroscopy was performed on the knee revealing right knee chondromalacia of the patella with lateral patellar mal-tracking and chondromalacia of the medial femoral condyle and lateral tibial...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00231
The PEB adjudicated the bilateral patella femoral syndrome condition as unfitting, rated 10%, with application of the Veteran’s Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). Effective January 2005, the VA assigned separate ratings of 10% for each knee based on new examination evidence supporting separate ratings for each knee. The Board noted that PEBs often combine multiple conditions under a single rating when those conditions considered individually are not separately unfitting and...
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 | CY2014 | PD 2014 01882
The right knee condition, characterized by the MEB as “tricompartmental chondromalacia of the right knee,” “lateral meniscus tear” and “left knee neuroma” (Board believes this to be an error and should have been right knee), were forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW SECNAVINST 1850.4E. The Informal PEB adjudicated “tricompartmental chondromalacia of the right knee” as unfitting, rated at 10%, with likely application of theVeterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00497
He was separated with a 10% disability rating determined by the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Ratings Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Naval and Department of Defense regulations. The VA diagnoses included: Focal atrophy of the vastus medialis muscle, minimal; right femur fracture requiring open reduction internal fixation, retrograde insertion of rod; anesthesia of strip below the knee medial aspect from the medial knee to the medial ankle, approximately two inches wide, decreased pin...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00179
The VA did rate this condition at 20%. While there was no instability or decreased flexion of the knee at the time of separation from service, the CI did have painful motion of the right knee. The Board also considered Peyronie’s disease with Erectile Dysfunction and Dupuytren‘s Contractures and found no evidence to support a determination that these conditions were unfitting at the time of separation from service and therefore no disability rating is applied.
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...