Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 05962-05
Original file (05962-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-51 00
JRE
Docket No. 05962-05
23 October 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 19 October 2006. 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 consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and 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. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the enclosed rationale of the hearing panel of the Physical Evaluation Board which considered your case on 8 March 2005. The Board was not persuaded that you suffered from persistent stasis pigmentation of your leg, or that you were entitled to a disability rating in excess of 20%. 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, it is imp or tant to keep mmmd that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden i s on the ap pl icant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.
Sincerely,



         W.       DEAN PFE IFFE R
 Executive Dir ector






Enclosure

USMC (RET)

 Rationale


The member was a 32-year-old male, Captain, USMC, (Ret.) with approximately 12
years and 5 months of service at the time he was placed on the Temporary Disability
Retired List (TDRL), on 13 December 2002, with a total disability rating of 40% under
VA code 7120, for the following diagnoses:

 1.       RECURRENT VENOUS THROMBOSIS
 2. ACTIVATED PROTEIN C RESISTANCE, POSSIBLY HEREDITARY

The member underwent periodic TDRL physical evaluation on 12 October 2004, at Army Community Hospital, Fort Carson, Colorado.

 The Informal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), considered th e c ase on 20 December 2004, and found the member unfit for continued naval service due to a physical disability based on diagnoses 1 and 2 that were considered ratable at 10% under VA code 7120, with separation from the TDRL with Severance Pay.
The member disagreed with this finding and demanded a formal hearing.

 A Formal PEB hearing was conducted on 8 March 2005, at Bethesda, Maryland , USMC acted as the Presiding Officer, with Colonel USM C and Captain MC, USN as board members. Lieutenant
 JAGC, USNR represented the member.
The member appeared at the hearing requesting to be found unfit for continued naval service due to a physical disability based on diagnoses 1 and 2, that he considered ratable at 40% under VA code 7120, with the member retained on the TDRL.

To support his request the member presented testimony and the following new information that was not included in the PEB case file.

Exhibit Alpha: 79 pages of medical evidence, which included notes from South Park Internal Medicine, the medical evaluation board dated 02/01/02 and subsequent medical notes from San Diego Naval Medical Center, and the Veterans Affairs Department decisional rating document dated May/June 2003.

Exhibit Bravo: 1 page of non-medical evidence, which consisted of a letter of support from a co-worker.
The member’s Medical Treatment Record was not made available for review and Service Record excerpts were made available for review.

 After careful review of all the available evidence and based on a unanimous opinion, the Formal PEB finds that the member is unfit for continued naval service because of a physical disability based on diagnosis 1. The record and evidence presented document
         the basis an unfit determination. This limits the member’s activities and assi gnability, which interferes with the adequate performance of required military duties.
         The member had recurrent episodes of venous thrombophlebitis with an episode of bilateral pulmonary emboli while on active duty. On work-up, he was noted to have a Factor V deficiency, an inherited disorder. Because of the recurrent episodes, he was placed on Coumadin anti-coagulation and will have to remain on this medication lifelong. Since placement on the TDRL, he continues to have swelling and fatigue with greater than 2 miles of running. He cannot do push-ups, but does modified sit-ups and pull-ups for exercising. His job entails walking distances of up to 7 or 8 miles per day. He notes that he gets left leg swelling especially if he does not wear the compression stocking. The swelling worsens throughout the day and lessens over night. Besides frequent monitoring of the Coumadin blood levels, the condition of the left leg has not changed significantly. On exam at the Board, there is minimal pretibial edema noted. There is no evidence of brawny induration, stasis pigmentation, or eczema. The VA decisional document rates the prior pulmonary emboli, which have resolved, at 60%. They also rate the left leg thrombosis at 10%. Based on the fatigue and the leg edema which may be intermittent or persistent, the appropriate level is 10-20 %. The condition is felt to be stable with respect to any time remaining on TDRL.
         Therefore, diagnosis 1 is most appropriately rated under VA code 7120 at 20%.
         Diagnosis 2 is considered Category II and is related to diagnosis 1. The condition is genetically inherited but the length of service (LOS) greater than 8 years voids the existed prior to service (EPTS) rule.
         The above ratings combine for a total disability rating of 20%.
         The disability is considered stabilized with respect to the remaining time of TDRL eligibility, and the member is to be Separated from the TDRL with Severance Pay
         The disabling condi tions are not considered combat-related.
         

Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00559

    Original file (PD2009-00559.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    There were no trophic skin changes or evidence of stasis dermatitis.” Diagnosis was “Postphlebitic syndrome, left lower extremity.” The VA (near entry into TDRL) used essentially the same exams and history as the military and rated the CI’s DVT-related conditions as 7121 (Left Lower Extremity Deep Venous Thrombosis) at 10%, and 6817 (Bilateral Base Pulmonary Emboli Secondary to Deep Venous Thrombosis) at 60%. After due deliberation, considering all of the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00663

    Original file (PD2011-00663.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    Although the pulmonary scans and pulmonary hypertension were improving, the CI had continued shortness of breath and had a diagnosis of chronic thromboembolic disease. The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) adjudicated primary hypercoagulable state, on lifelong anticoagulation condition as unfitting (with contributing category II chronic thromboembolic disease and venous stasis) and the CI was rated at 40% and placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL). Exhibit C. Department of...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-01024

    Original file (PD2011-01024.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The conditions of history of deep vein thrombosis of the right and left lower extremities with post-phlebetic syndrome and chronic venous insufficiency as requested for consideration are the residuals that, IAW with the VASRD, should be used to rate the unfitting condition of heterozygous factor V Leiden deficiency and therefore they meet the criteria prescribed in DoDI 6040.44 for Board purview; and are addressed below, as part of the review of the rating for the unfitting condition. ...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00157

    Original file (PD2009-00157.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chronic, Persistent Deep Venous Thrombosis/Recurrent Pulmonary Embolism/Hypercoagulable State requiring chronic use of anticoagulants: The CI served in the U.S. Marine Corps between 1987 and 1991 on active duty. VA treatment records revealed that in January 2009, the CI was admitted for another pulmonary embolism. Either condition alone would require Coumadin use.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01365

    Original file (PD2012 01365.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Subsequently after two TDRL periodic exams, the PEB determined the CI’s left lower leg DVT to be stable and unfitting and at this time also determined the CI’s condition to be “post phlebitic syndrome” rated 10%. CI CONTENTION : “Per the findings of my Physical Evaluation Board Proceeding dated 17 Nov 2002, my combined disability rating was rated at 40% category I unfitting conditions. Both the PEBand the VA used the same code:7121, with the PEB rating the condition 10%and the VA rating it...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00061

    Original file (PD2012-00061.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) adjudicated the hypercoagulable state due to May Thurner Syndrome referred to as recurrent left lower extremity DVT condition as unfitting, rated 10% with application of the Veteran’s Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) and the US Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) Table of Analogous Codes of 25 November 2008. The other requested Hypercoagulable State due to May Thurner Syndrome referred to as Recurrent Left Lower Extremity Deep Vein...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01176

    Original file (PD-2014-01176.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Repeat examination on 27 June 2004 also recorded that there was no edema of the lower extremities. On examination, the left calf and both thighs were tender to touch, and several distended veins were felt on the left lower calf and right upper thigh.A Coumadin Clinic encounter on 9 December 2005, recorded the CI experienced muscle pain when he overdid activities such as standing too long or playing basketball. The CI complained of edema of the lower extremities relieved with elevation on...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-02239

    Original file (PD-2014-02239.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The initial VA C&P examination (within the DES Pilot process occurred)dated3 June 2009, during the examination, the examiner noted that the CI was not currently in psychiatric treatment and during brief treatment for his MH symptoms in 2008 he was not hospitalized, was not suicidal and had not required any psychotropic medications.At the VA C&P examination the CI denied being anxious or depressedand the examiner noted the CI was “without signs of ongoing anxiety, depression, or psychosis at...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00113

    Original file (PD2011-00113.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    The CI made no appeals, and was medically separated with a 10% disability rating. In 2008, the VA further increased this rating to 40% effective on 31 March 2004 based on evidence from continuing treatment records and a later VA C&P examination in May 2008. I concur with that finding, accept their recommendation and direct that your records be corrected as set forth in the attached copy of a Memorandum for the Chief of Staff, United States Air Force.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00250

    Original file (PD2012-00250.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Examination of the lower extremities was recorded as normal. In the matter of the Factor II Mutation condition and IAW VASRD §4.104, the Board unanimously recommends no change in the PEB adjudication.