Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 05450-05
Original file (05450-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

JRE
Docket No. 05450-05
11 September 2006


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 8 September 2006. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with a administrative regulations and procedures applicable t~ the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material consider e by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulation~ 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 you enlisted in the Navy Reserve on 29 March 2001. You were ordered to duty for training for the period 14-2 8 March 2002. On 24 March 2002, you reported to sick call complaining of a sore throat and constipation. The results of the “rapid strap test” administered on that date were negative. You were seen at a civilian medical clinic on 13 April 2002, and were given a diagnosis of pharyngitis. On 11 October 2002, you were evaluated at a civilian medical clinic, and given a diagnosis of strep pharyngitis. On 19 October 2002, during a Naval Reserve drill period, you reported that you were not feeling well, and were referred for medical evaluation and treatment. You were given a diagnosis of rule-out rheumatic fever. On 13 November 2002, the Commander, Naval Reserve Force, determined that your conditions of a heart murmur, rheumatic fever and anemia were not incurred in or aggravated by your service in the Naval Reserve, and that you were not entitled to a notice of eligibility for disability benefits (NOE) for those conditions. On 14 March 2003, the Judge Advocate General of the Navy advised you that he had upheld the determination of the Commander, Naval Reserve Force, and denied your appeal of that decision. On 15 April 2005, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) determined that you were not physically qualified for service in the Naval Reserve due to rheumatic fever and arthritis that were not the proximate result of your performance of military duty. 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 unable to recommend any corrective action in your case. Accordingly, 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, ‘~ 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,



W. DEAN PFIEFFER
Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 02146-04

    Original file (02146-04.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board reconsider of your application, together with all material submitted insupport t thereof, your naval record arid applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05264-01

    Original file (05264-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 January 2002. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01180-07

    Original file (01180-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Specifically, the panel of the Board that considered your case was not persuaded you were issued the silencing order described in your application, that you suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder while serving on active duty in the Navy, or that you were unfit to reasonably perform the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating by reason of physical disability prior to your separation from the Navy. Two other survivors of the Liberty attack have applied for correction of their naval...

  • 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 | 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 | 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064717C070421

    Original file (2001064717C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. He states that his report of medical examination dated 19 July 1954, five months prior to his induction, showed that his only prior existing medical conditions...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-01039

    Original file (PD2011-01039.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board evaluates DVA evidence proximal to separation in arriving at its recommendations, but its authority resides in evaluating the fairness of DES fitness decisions and rating determinations for disability at the time of separation. At the MEB exam, completed 14 months prior to separation in September 2001, the CI reported; severe and debilitating fatigue which had impaired his ability to adequately perform his duties, non-refreshing sleep, daytime fatigue, intermittent leg pain which...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140004701

    Original file (20140004701.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The physician stated the applicant was being seen for right neck pain. b. Paragraph 4–2 (Soldiers with suspended sentences) states a Soldier may not be referred for, or continue, disability processing if under sentence of dismissal or punitive discharge. The evidence of record shows the applicant was convicted by a GCM of being AWOL/deserting in an attempt to avoid deployment and he was ordered to be discharged with a BCD.