Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09780-06
Original file (09780-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

PEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARP FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No. 09780-06
28 November 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 pan~1 of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 November 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, to ether 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 r4tionale of the hearing panel of the Physical Evaluation Board which considered your case on 30 September 2003. A copy of that rationale is attached. The Board concluded that your condition was properly rated in accordance with the Department Veteran ~f fairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities, as modified by the more stringent criteria contained in SECNAVINST 1850.4E. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

Your request for correction of your rate on your DD Form 214 is administrative in nature and should be directed to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, who may issue you a DD Form 215 to correct the error.

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,






This member is a 28 year-old, EM2, USN (RET), with approximately 3 years and 3 months of service at the time he appeared before a medical board. He was placed on the TDRL on 17 April 1998 with a total disability rating of 30% under VA code 6602 for the following diagnosis:
BRONCHIAL ASTHMA
The following diagnoses were considered Category III conditions:
2.       DECREASED GRIP STRENGTH, S/P SOFT TISSUE TRAUMA
 3 NERVE INJURY TO THE ULNNR ASPECT OF PALM
The member underwent a periodic TDRL physical evaluation on ‘7 May 2003 at the Headquarters, 6”’ Medical Group, Macdill AFB, FL.
The Informal PEB considered the case on 7 July 2003 and found the member unfit for continued naval service due to physical disability, and to be separated from the TDRL with severance pay with a disability rating of 10% under VA code 6602 for diagnosis #1, BRONCHIAL ASTHMA. The member disagreed with this finding and demanded a formal hearing.
A formal hearing was conducted on 30 September 2003 at Bethesda,
as Presiding and        as panel members. member.

The member appeared at the hearing and petitioned to be found unfit for continued naval service with a disability rating of 30% under VA code 6602 for diagnosis Hi and transferred to the PDRL. To support his request, the member presented testimony and 4 pages of new medical evidence and 4 page of non-medical evidence. The member’s medical record and service record were not available for review.
After careful review of all the available evidence and based on unanimous opinion, the Formal PEB finds the member is unfit for continued naval service because of physical disability due to BRONCHIAL ASTHMA. The continued manifestation of symptoms precludes the adequate performance of military duties.
The periodic physical examination documents that since the member has been on the TDRL he has not required daily oral medications, any oral steroids, emergency room treatments or hospitalizations. The new medical evidence documented that the member was treated for asthma on 29 September 2003 in the emergency department at the National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, MID. Pulmonary function testing performed on the day of the hearing revealed paradoxical results with the post-bronchodilator



1
studies showing worse results. The pre-bronchodilator studies revealed an FVC of 81%, FEV1 of 76% and a ratio of 76%.
The member testified that he has coughing and wheezing and gets headaches from his medication. His symptoms are worse at night and early morning and have not been present during his pulmonary function tests. He uses inhalers almost every day including Asthmacort every 4-6 hours but is often off schedule and takes it at school when he remembers. The day prior to the formal hearing the member did not have his inhaler. He reported to the emergency room to obtain an inhaler. He described self-imposed limitations in his lifestyle to minimize the impact of this condition. He expressed his belief that had he not done so his condition would have been worse.
Diagnosis #1 is most appropriately rated under VA code 6602. The SECNAVJNST 1 850.4E requirements for a rating of 30% under this code are not met. The pulmonary function tests values showed a paradoxical response so the pre-bronchodilator results were used and they do not support a rating of 10%. The member was given the benefit of doubt with consideration given to his use of bronchodilators and a rating of 10% under VA code 6602 is recommended.
Diagnosis #2 and #3 remain Category III conditions.
The disability is considered stabilized with respect to the expiration of time in TDRL eligibility and the disability is considered permanent. Since the total rating is less than 30%, separation from the TDRL with severance pay is warranted.
The disabling conditions are not considered combat-related.
 _       










2

Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00263

    Original file (PD2009-00263.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB’s DA Form 199 dated 20050413 indicated “Asthma, with normal spirometry, on intermittent inhalational bronchodilator therapy.” The PEB specified “Medication profile shows no controller medication between March – April 2004 and 15 February 2005.” The PEB permanent separation rating was 6602 at 10%; and the VASRD 10% criteria contains the phrasing “intermittent inhalational or oral bronchodilator therapy.” There is therefore no evidence that the provisions of DoDI 1332.39 were applied. ...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01964

    Original file (PD-2013-01964.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of theVeterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. He requires close medical follow-up, and consideration should be given to TDRL status.”On 4 January 2004, the CI was placed on the TDRL with a rating of 60%. The CI’s asthma was not severe enough to justify a higher...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00621

    Original file (PD2012-00621.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Asthma Condition. All treatment notes and the VA exam indicated daily inhaled medication use. Service Treatment Record Exhibit C. Department of Veterans’ Affairs Treatment Record XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX President Physical Disability Board of Review MINORITY OPINION: The minority voter agrees with the statement in the above proceedings that, “The key question to the Board was whether there was reasonable doubt as to the CI’s severity based on medication use.” The PEB rated the asthma condition...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00234

    Original file (PD2013 00234.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The MEB also identified and forwarded one other condition (shrapnel wound to the right upper arm, which met retention standards) to the PEB.The PEBadjudicated “asthma…” rated at 30%and placed the CI on the Temporary Retired Disability List (TDRL) in order for the condition to be stabilized by treatment.The remaining condition was determined to be not unfitting.The CI made no appeals and was placed on the TDRL in November, 2004, where he continued to receive medical treatment. The Board’s...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 01411

    Original file (PD2013 01411.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEWNAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX CASE: PD1301411 BRANCH OF SERVICE: Army BOARD DATE: 20140122 At that time a diagnosis of mild persistent asthma aggravated by exposure to petroleum products was rendered.At the separation exam on 17 November 2003, the CI reported using inhalers “when needed for asthma.”Review of the STR showed one note in evidence documenting the use of an oral steroid for asthma (September 2003).At a clinic visit for...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-01076

    Original file (PD-2012-01076.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The MEB forwarded no other conditions for Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) adjudication. The MEB physical exam noted clear lungs and the medications and PFTs are summarized above. Allergy/Immunology clinic follow‐up the month after the MEB continued the diagnosis and is summarized above.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02522

    Original file (PD-2013-02522.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The rating for the unfitting asthma condition is addressed below. Post-Separation)ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Bronchial Asthma6699-660210%Asthma6602100%20070531Other x 1 (Not in Scope)Other x 5 Combined: 10%Combined: 100% *Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD) dated 20060801 (most proximate to date of separation (DOS)) ANALYSIS SUMMARY :The Board also acknowledges the CI’s contention that suggests a higher service rating should have been granted on the unfitting medical...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00100

    Original file (PD2012-00100.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    Chronic Cough Condition . When carefully considering the whole record IAW VASRD §4.2 (Interpretation of examination reports) in order to develop a consistent picture of the CI’s chronic cough condition health condition the Board agreed the evidence reflects a consistent improvement in the post bronchodilator. In the matter of the chronic cough condition, the Board unanimously recommends a disability rating of 30%, coded 6699-6602 IAW VASRD §4.97.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01552

    Original file (PD-2013-01552.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The service treatment record (STR) initially reflected that the CI wasbeing worked-up for a respiratory condition noting the first of many spirometry/pulmonary function tests (PFTs) dated 28 August 2002. The CI was never placed on oral corticosteroids; therefore, Board members deliberated if the CI’s condition supported the 30% criteria level.Clearly, the final pulmonology report noted no use of medication for the previous “several months.”Additionally, the post-separation VA examination...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01963

    Original file (PD-2013-01963.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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. The Board next considered that at the time of separation, although the CI’s asthma was relatively well controlled,treatment notes in the STR, the MEB and C&P exams consistently documented use of the anti-inflammatory inhaler and oral bronchodilator medications, with...