~~
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No. 04095-06
25 July 2007.
Dear ie,
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 12 July 2007. 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.
The Board found that you enlisted in the Marine Corps on 11
October 1972. You were absent without authority from 16 May to
11 September 1973, and from 3 October 1973 to 17 September 1974.
On 10 December 1974, you underwent a pre-separation physical
examination, and were found not physically qualified for
separation because glucose had been detected in your urine. You
were discharged under other than honorable condition on i18
December 1974, in accordance with your request for discharge for
the good of the service in lieu of trail by court-martial of the
aforementioned unauthorized absences. You were apparently
diagnosed with diabetes mellitus approximately thirty years after
you were discharged.
Although your urine was positive for the presence of glucose when
tested during December 1974, the available records do not
demonstrate that you suffered from diabetes mellitus at that
time, or that you were unfit for duty by reason of physical
disability that was incurred or aggravated while you were
entitled to basic pay. In addition, the Board found that you
would not have been entitled to disability separation or
retirement even if you had been unfit by reason of physical
disability, because your request for discharge for the good of
the service would have taken precedence over and precluded
disability evaluation processing. 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 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,
Ion G
W. DEAN PF
Executive D or
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07800-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your application on 14 June 2001. As you have not demonstrated that you were unfit for duty because of diabetes mellitus on 21 September 1991, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in your case. 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.
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-02137
The “diabetes mellitus, type 1 (insulin dependent)” condition was forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) as not meeting retention standards IAW AR 40-501.The MEB also identified and forwarded “hyperlipidemia” as meeting retention standards, for further PEB adjudication.The Informal PEB adjudicated “insulin dependent diabetes” as unfitting, rated 20%. The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00301
CI CONTENTION : The CI states: “After 6.5 years dedicated to the Service of the Air Force (4 at USAFA and 2.5 full-time active), I was determined unfit physically due to the onset of Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus. Unfitting Condition: DM Type I Condition . Therefore, the Board determined that neither condition could be argued as unfitting at the time of separation from Service and subject to separation rating.
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02244
IAW DoDI 6040.44, the Board’s authority is limited to making recommendations on correcting disability determinations. RATING COMPARISON : Service IPEB – Dated 20091009VA* - Based on Service Treatment Records (STR)ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Diabetes Mellitus, Type I791320%Diabetes Mellitus, Type I791320%**STROther x 1 (Not in Scope)Other x 0STR Combined: 20%Combined: 20% *Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD) dated 20100226 (most proximate to date of separation (DOS)). The...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-01031
Although the 40% rating was not supported by the evidence of the service treatment record, the PEB placed the CI on the TDRL with a rating of 40%. The PEB concluded the diabetes unfitting for continued military service and adjudicated a permanent 20% rating. Both at the time of placement on the TDRL and at the time of permanent disability disposition and removal from the TDRL, the CI’s diabetes was treated with diet and medication (an oral medication and insulin) meeting the VASRD criteria...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 01036
The VA Rating Decision (VARD) of June 2005 indicated a civilian medical report indicating fluctuating blood sugars, increased insulin requirements and required regulation of activities due to diabetes. The VA increased their rating to 40% effective May 2005 (30 months after separation) based on that evidence. RECOMMENDATION: The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no recharacterization of the CIs disability and separation determination, as follows: UNFITTING CONDITION VASRD...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00353
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. Neither the MEB nor the VA exam documented compensable ROM impairment of the left knee under 5260, limitation of flexion, coding. Service Treatment Record
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120001448
The applicant provides: * DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile) * Standard Form (SF) 600 (Health Record - Chronological Record of Medical Care) (11 pages) * MEB and PEB * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision * PDBR Record of Proceedings with enclosures * Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) denial letter and DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Response to first denial with filing with both the...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00630
Although no treatment record diagnosis of hypertension (HTN) was found in the records available to the Board, the MEB physical note indicated medication for blood pressure and the VA records indicated a diagnosis of HTN while in service in 2006 while on active duty. The Board deliberated what the CI’s HTN would rate under code 7101 (required for consideration in rating renal disease) and considered the evidence of likely in-service labile HTN, and that the VA HTN exam three months post...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06977-01
” The Board noted that it is the function of an MEB, which is composed entirely of physicians, to report on the state of health of the service member who is the subject of the MEB, and to recommend referral of the member to the PEB in appropriate cases. In reference to the question of why Petitioner's cardiac and pulmonary conditions found not unfitting at the time of his initial PEB adjudication and placement on the TDRL, reference Petitioner's original 14 February 1992 Medical Evaluation...