DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
SMW
Docket No: 5517-07
24 January 2008
—
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
plication on 23 January 2008. 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.
On 14 January 2004, you enlisted in the Navy at age 24. on
16 December 2004, a medical evaluation diagnosed you as having a
food allergy to seafood and shellfish. At that time you were
prescribed an epinephrine-pen for emergency use. On
12 January 2005, another medical evaluation stated that you were
severely allergic to shellfish, and concluded that you were not
fit for sea duty and were unlikely to have any changes in this
condition. On 19 February 2005, a performance evaluation
indicated that you were recommended for retention. On
2 March 2005, your commanding officer initiated administrative
separation by reason of convenience of the government due to a
condition not a physical disability that interferes with the
performance of duty, and recommended an honorable discharge. In
connection with this processing, you acknowledged the separation
action and did not object to discharge. On 10 March 2005, the
separation authority approved the discharge recommendation. On
16 March 2005, another medical evaluation stated that you were
extremely allergic to shellfish to the point that you were unable
to eat food prepared in a galley if any shellfish was prepared at
the same time, even without eating shellfish yourself. On
25 March 2005, you were honorably discharged by reason of
convenience of the government due to a condition not a disability
which interferes with the performance of duty and assigned an
RE-4 reenlistment code.
Regulations authorize the assignment of an RE-~4 reenlistment code
to members who are discharged due to a condition not a disability
which interferes with the performance of duty. Although your
last performance evaluation indicated that you were recommended
for retention, the Board found that recommendation was not
binding due to you being found unfit for sea duty because of the
severity of your diagnosed food allergy. Since you have been
treated no differently than others in your situation, the Board
could not find an error or injustice in the assignment of the
RE-4 reenlistment code. 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, 7
W. DI
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00147
The aforementioned conditions were included in my VA Disability claim and the VA determined and awarded the following within 12 months of separation: - Asthma was Service Connected Disability with 30% Rating; - Lower Back was Service Connected Disability with 10% Rating; - Hypertension was Service Connected Disability with 0% Rating; & - Pseudofolliculitis barbae was Service Connected Disability with 0% Rating. After careful consideration of your application and treatment records, the...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01602
DATE OF PLACEMENT ON TDRL: 20030706Date of Permanent SEPARATION: 20040720 BOARD FINDINGS : IAW DoDI 6040.44, provisions of DoD or Military Department regulations or guidelines relied upon by the PEB will not be considered by the Board to the extent they were inconsistent with the VASRD in effect at the time of the adjudication.The Board did not surmise from the record or PEB ruling in this case that any prerogatives outside the VASRD were exercised.In the matter of the asthma condition and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120003542
The applicant also states his medical retirement with a 30% disability rating was only based on his condition of asthma. His record contains a DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile), dated 13 April 2005, that shows his medical conditions at the time as: Asthma and Chronic left knee pain. The applicant's record is void of any evidence and he did not provide any evidence that shows he appeared before a promotion board for consideration to the rank/grade of SGT/E-5 at any time during his service or...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05601
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05601 XXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her entry level separation be changed to a medical discharge with benefits. Her dependent medical records reflect that she had an allergy to "pecan" nuts. Nevertheless, since the applicant was presumed fit to enter military service [at least from a musculoskeletal perspective] and she was presumably...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD 2013 00150
There were limited MH treatment notes in the records before the Board, but the available records support that the two sets of symptoms waxed and waned together.The CI developed a non-MH condition treated with steroid medications that reportedly caused weight gain and/or inhibited mandatory weight loss to meet Navy physical standards.The Board noted that during the time that the CI wastreated with steroids, she had an exacerbation of depression symptoms leading to an inpatient hospitalization...
USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00031
MD00-00031 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 991007, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. She was returned to full duty after having reported no purging behavior or any problems for a period of 3 months. Pt placed on limited duty board at previous duty station in Okinawa, Japan for bulimia.
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01310
From the time the Medical Evaluation Board conducted their exam on 4/8/2003 to the time they rendered their decision on 6/16/2003 there were additional medical conditions identified on a physical exam on 5/22/203 that were no [sic] considered. Post-Separation)ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Allergic Rhinitis, with Polyps or Obstruction(Includes: Severe Allergies, Upper Airway Resistant Syndrome and Refractory Allergic Rhinitis)65220%Chronic Rhinitis Upper Airway Resistant...
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00024
My sinus rating is 50% now. All evidence considered, and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt), the majority of the Board recommends a disability rating of 30% as the fair permanent separation rating for asthma (6602) in this case. RECOMMENDATION : The Board recommends that the CI’s prior determination be modified as follows and that the discharge with severance pay be recharacterized to reflect permanent disability retirement, effective as of the date of his prior medical separation:
USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101339
” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s date of discharge. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00867
A 24 January 2007 clinic record entry reflected the CI reported medication was working well for his headaches but had recurred when he ran out of medication.At a VA C&P examination, dated 23 July 2007, 5 months after separation, the CI reported two headaches per week, but added that he was not incapacitated by headaches, and had lost “no time from work due to headache.”The Board directs attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence. The PEB found the headaches unfitting...