Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10295-06
Original file (10295-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECOADS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100



 JRE
 Docket No. 10295-06
27 November 2007
From:    Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To:      Secretary of the Navy
Subj :
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD
Ref:     (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552
End:     (1) DD Form 149 w/ attachment
(2)      Subjects CRSC Branch file
(3)      Subjects naval record
1.       Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected to show that he is entitled to combat-related special compensation (CRSC) for residuals of a left foot injury which has been rated by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) at 30% under VA code 5284. He contends that the injury occurred on 13 April l9~~4(”~ during operations on the flight deck of the USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70), when a tow tractor ran over his foot.
2 The Board, consisting of Ms    ___ and Messrs and reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 25 October 2007, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
3.       The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice, finds as follows:
a.       Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies which were available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy.
         






         b.       Enclosure (1) was filed in a timely manner
 c.       Petitioner served on active duty in the Navy from 26 October 1979 to 30 November 1999, when he was released from active duty and transferred to the Fleet Reserve. He underwent a compensation and pension examination at a VA facility on 12 May 2000, and reported that he had injured his left shoulder while playing racquetball and from repetitive lifting of aircraft tires. He stated that he suffered a crush injury of his left foot when the foot was run over by an aircraft tow tractor in 1993. The VA awarded him service connection and a 10% rating for status post crush injury with chronic pain syndrome and claw toes, left foot, effective 1 December 1999. The rating was increased to 20% effective 2 December 2002, and 30% effective 18 June 2004. He was also awarded a 10% rating for bursitis, left shoulder, from 1 December 1999. The VA denied his request for service connection for bilateral knee pain, tinnitus and hearing loss.
d.       On 17 October 2006, the CRSC Branch, Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards, denied Petitioner’s request for CRSC for his foot and shoulder conditions because it was unable to confirm the cause of the aforementioned disabilities based on the limited evidence Petitioner had submitted for review.
e.       Prior to reviewing Petitioner’s request, the staff of the Board obtained a copy of his Navy health and VA records from the VA. An entry in his Navy health record dated 27 April 1990, indicates that Petitioner reported that his left “pinky” toe had been painful for two days after he dropped a “tie-down chain” on his left foot. An entry dated 13 April 1994 indicates that he reported to a flight deck aid station complaining that his left foot had been run over by a tow tractor about two minutes earlier. He completed a Report of Medical History and a Report of Medical Assessment on 28 July 1999 in connection with his pre-retirement physical examination. He disclosed, in part, that he had sustained a crush injury to his left foot, and that he had received treatment of his “left foot small toe”.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and resolving doubt in Petitioner’s favor, the Board concludes that his foot disability was caused by an instrumentality of war, i.e., an aircraft tow tractor during flight operations on an aircraft carrier, and as such should be considered combat related . Accordingly, the Board recommends the following corrective action.


2




RECOMMENDATION



a.       That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that he is entitled to combat-related special compensation for status/post crush injury, left foot, with chronic pain syndrome and claw toes 3,4, and 5, rated at 30% under VA code 5284.
b.       That a copy of this Report of Proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record.
4. It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board’s review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board’s proceedings in the above entitled matter.


ROBERT D. ZSALMAN                                    JAMES R EXNICIOS
Recorder                                              Acting Recorder



5.       The foregoing report of the Board is submitted for your review and action.



ROBERT T. CALI
Assistant General Counsel
(Manpower and Reserve Affairs)



Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02293

    Original file (PD-2013-02293.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Foot Condition . It documented hallux valgus and pes cavus (claw foot, congenital) deformitiesof both feet and full ROM of the right ankle and hindfoot.That note itself did not reference trauma, but a follow-up orthopedic entry provided a history of injury to the right foot only. The podiatry addendum 8 months prior to separation documented pain rated “6/10 progressing to 9/10 on his right foot;” with no rest pain of the left foot, but 5/10 pain with activity.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01281

    Original file (PD2012 01281.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Both CRPS and“osteoarthritis left big toe” were forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) as medically unacceptable conditions IAW AR 40-501;and, no other conditions were submitted.The PEB adjudicated “chronic regional pain syndrome, left foot with osteoarthritis great toe”as a singleunfitting condition, rated 20%, citing criteria of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD).The CI made no appeals and was medically separated. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11781-09

    Original file (11781-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-51900 JRE Docket No. 11781-09 19 July 2010 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD Ref: (a} 10 U.S.C. 1552 Encl: (21) DD Form 149 (2) Subject's naval record 1.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10316-07

    Original file (10316-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    4 1 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 JRE Docket No. 10316-07 18 April 2008 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy FPeORRECTION OF. NAVAL RECORD Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02791

    Original file (PD-2013-02791.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board reviews medical records and other available evidence to assess the fairness of PEB rating determinations, using the VASRD standards, based on ratable severity at the time of separationand, to review those fitness determinations within its scope consistent with performance-based criteria in evidence at separation. tenderness to palpation; Decreased movement of toes of right foot; Repetitive motion increased ROM; No temperature change; No skin or vascular changes; Normal reflexes...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01894

    Original file (PD2012 01894.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    CI CONTENTION : “Medical Board combined Right and Left conditions as one and left off pes planus from diagnostic evaluation. All members agreed, however, that separate ratings (unilateral or bilateral) under separate codes was not compliant with VASRD §4.14 (avoidance of pyramiding), which specifies that “the evaluation of the same manifestation under different diagnoses are to be avoided.” Specifically a separate compensable rating for pes planus, as contended by the CI and conferred by...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00165

    Original file (PD2009-00165.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB found the CI unfit for the foot injury only and he was medically separated with a disability rating of 20%. All evidence considered, the Board has no reasonable basis for recommending any additional unfitting conditions for separation rating. In the matter of the neck, back, intermittent right hand numbness, right knee and headache conditions or any other medical conditions eligible for Board consideration; the Board unanimously agrees that it cannot recommend any findings of unfit...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02297

    Original file (PD-2013-02297.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. A provider note from April 2005 (10 months prior to separation) states, “Achilles symptoms are self-manageable per patient, but primary complaint is surgical site foot pain.” TheAchilles condition was never profiled. RECOMMENDATION : The Board, therefore, recommends...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 01918

    Original file (PD 2012 01918.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board directs attention to its rating recommendationbased on the above evidence.The PEB rated the left foot condition 20%, coded 5284 (other foot injuries) and the VA rated initially as not service-connected as noted but subsequently as arthrosis tarsometatarsal joint left foot at 10%, also coded 5284. The CI had painful foot ROM noted and reported pain with use of the left foot. Service Treatment Record Exhibit C. Department of Veterans’ Affairs Treatment Record

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-00767

    Original file (BC-2004-00767.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement, his CRSC denial letter, and documents extracted from his medical and flight records. The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states the definite causal relationship can be found in the fact that his injury would not have occurred if he was not a crewmember, performing official duties, during ongoing combat...