Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 02146-04
Original file (02146-04.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
                                    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                                             2 NAVY ANNEX
                                                       WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
                                                                                          JRE
 Docket No. 02146-04
13 August 2004
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 29 July 2004. 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 reconsider of your application, together with all material submitted in support t thereof, your naval record arid applicable statutes, regulations and policies.

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.
The Board found that a board of medical survey (BMS) which convened on 7 November 1966 gave you diagnoses of chondromalacia right patella, and aortic stenosis, existed prior to enlistment, not service aggravated. The latter diagnosis was based on information disclosed by you and the contents of a letter from a physician dated 24 October 1966. The physician stated that he first saw you on 15 February 1956. Prior to that time, you had been followed in a rheumatic fever clinic at a state medical college. He related that you had a rather severe strep throat and pneumonia (presumably at 14 months of age) and several years later, a heart murmur was noted. He stated that the results of fluoroscopic examination, electrocardiogram and heart
 catheterization performed on 7 March 1956 were normal. Left heart catheterization was not performed. The physician stated that even though no specific diagnosis was made, he suspected that “this could represent a congenital bicuspic [sic] valve.” The EMS recommended that you be referred to the physical evaluation board (PEE) for determination of your fitness for duty. You were advised of the findings and recommendation of the EMS, and of your right to submit a statement in rebuttal thereto. There is no indication in the available records that you submitted any matters in rebuttal to the report of the EMS. You were discharged by reason of physical disability on 9 January 1967, with a 10% rating for the aforementioned knee condition.
The Board was not persuaded that the determination of the EMS concerning the origin of the aortic stenosis is erroneous. It noted that the EMS based it determination on the application of accepted medical principles to the available medical evidence. The Board rejected the recent determination of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that the heart condition was incurred during your service in the Navy, as that determination is not well reasoned or substantiated by the evidence of record. In this regard, the Board noted that the VA concluded, essentially, that as the specific condition of aortic stenosis was not diagnosed prior to your enlistment, and as you passed your preenlistment physical examination, that condition must have been incurred during your service in the Navy. The VA discounted and/or ignored significant evidence when making that determination, to include your pre-service history of rheumatic fever and a heart murmur, which apparently persisted into your apparently persisted into your adolescence, and the statements of several private physicians who concluded that your heart condition was either congenital in nature, or resulted from the rheumatic fever you suffered as an infant. In addition, the Board noted that as the effects of the heart condition did not result in any appreciable impairment of your health or social or industrial adaptability at the time of your discharge, you would not have been entitled to a disability rating in excess of 0% for that condition even if it the PEE had considered it to be ratable. Finally, although the VA may raise or lower disability ratings throughout a veteran’s lifetime, ratings assigned by the military departments are fixed as of the date of separation or permanent retirement.
In view of the foregoing, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

 It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the Board 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,

Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00979

    Original file (PD2010-00979.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    BAV and chest pain (exertion related) were the only conditions on the MEB’s submission to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). The CI made no appeals and was medically separated with a 10% disability rating. 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 Board of Review Mr. XXXX’s records not be corrected to reflect a change in either his characterization of separation or in...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9803224

    Original file (9803224.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Effective Apr 95, the applicant received a 30% disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) for his “aortic insufficiency/stenosis with mitral valve prolapse.” _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and indicated that as early as 1986, the applicant was diagnosed with valvular heart disease, most likely secondary to rheumatic fever, the disease affecting the aortic as...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130011502

    Original file (20130011502.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    He was told at the time that he had rheumatic fever and he was hospitalized for 2 weeks. On 22 August 1967, a medical evaluation board (MEB) convened at Fort Bragg, NC, and after consideration of clinical records, laboratory findings, and physical examinations, the MEB determined the applicant had the medical conditions of Valvulitis, rheumatic, inactive with deformity of the aortic valve; and Valvulitis, rheumatic, inactive with deformity of the mitral valve, both existed prior to service...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110021707

    Original file (20110021707.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel states: * the applicant served with pride for almost 15 years in the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC), Regular Army (RA), and the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) * he received numerous awards and decorations including the Aviation Badge * his physical condition while serving in the military was excellent until January 1972 when he was diagnosed as having aortic insufficiency * this medical condition was severe enough to disqualify him from continuing to perform flight duties which in turn prompted...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 05450-05

    Original file (05450-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 September 2006. You were discharged from the Naval Reserve on 28 June 2005, without entitlement to disability benefits administered by the Department of the Navy.As the Board was not persuaded that you suffered from strep throat during the 14-28 March 2002 period, and that your disability was incurred while you were performing duty in the Naval Reserve, it was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2004-03770

    Original file (BC-2004-03770.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03770 INDEX CODE: 108.07 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 12 Jun 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His service-connected medical condition, heart prosthesis, be assessed as combat related in order to qualify for compensation under the Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Act. He...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 01003640

    Original file (01003640.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    He accepted the undesirable discharge so he could return home to work and help his family. The board found that the applicant was physically unfit for further military duty and recommended that the applicant be referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) for further evaluation. On 19 March 2002, a letter was forwarded to applicant and counsel suggesting that the applicant consider providing evidence pertaining to his post-service activities.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009761

    Original file (20130009761.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant provides: * A completed DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharged from the Armed Forces of the United States) * 1959 Standard Form (SF) 89 (Report of Medical History) * 1960 SF 88 (Report of Medical Examination), front page * 1960 DD Form 689 (Individual Sick Slip) * 1960 Line of Duty (LOD) Investigation memorandum * 1960 DA Form 8-118 (Medical Board Proceedings) * 1962 and 1967 Honorable Discharge Certificates * 2011 Radiology Reports and Progress Notes (7) * 2011...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004101068C070208

    Original file (2004101068C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that she be placed on active duty medical evaluation (ADME) and that her military medical records be corrected to reflect the injuries, illnesses, and diseases that were not diagnosed during her active service. The applicant provides her service medical records; an application for ADME; a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision; a VA magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) report; line of duty investigation reports; her DD Forms 214 (Certificate of Release or...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 04102820C070208

    Original file (04102820C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 15 July 1994 the Physical Disability Branch informed the applicant that information indicated that he did not report for his periodic physical examination during December 1992, and that if he did not provide an explanation for his failure to report for the examination, then no further effort would be made to schedule him, and his eligibility to receive Army retired pay would be terminated. On 17 November 1994 the Physical Disability Branch informed him that his eligibility to receive...