Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06790-07
Original file (06790-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370~5 100



 JRE
 Docket No. 06790-07
19 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 application on 29 November 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 Navy on 1 October 2002. On 12 September 2006, a medical board gave you a diagnosis of narcolepsy without cataplexy and referred your case to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). On 18 October 2006, the PEB made a preliminary finding that you were fit for duty. You accepted that finding on 25 October 2006 and your case was finalized by the President, PEB on 27 October 2006. On 19 March 2007, you were honorably discharged for the convenience of the government because of a condition which impaired your performance, but did not amount to a physical disability.
On 8 August 2007, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded you disability ratings of 10% for reactive airway disease and narcolepsy, and 0% for sinusitis and nursemaid’s elbow. The VA determined that the narcolepsy did not affect your daily living, and noted that you did not fall asleep during the daytime or while driving. The VA awarded the 10% rating based on the confirmed diagnosis of narcolepsy and your need for continuous medication to control that condition.
The fact that you have received disability ratings from the VA is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record, because the VA awards disability ratings without regard to the issue of fitness for military service. It appears that you were discharged because you were considered unsuitable for further service because the narcolepsy rendered you non-deployable. It is important to note that a finding of nondeployability does not mandate a finding of unfitness for service by reason by reason of physical disability. Accordingly, and in the absence of evidence which demonstrates that the PEE erroneously determined that you were fit for duty, 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,


                                             
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
                                                                Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03762-09

    Original file (03762-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 June 2009. The medical board recommended that your case be considered by the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). 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 00047

    Original file (PD 2014 00047.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    SEPARATION DATE: 20070412 RECOMMENDATION : The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no recharacterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination. SUBJECT: Department of Defense Physical Disability Board of Review Recommendation for XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, AR20150003761 (PD201400047)I have reviewed the enclosed Department of Defense Physical Disability Board of Review (DoD PDBR) recommendation and record of proceedings pertaining to the subject individual.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00602-09

    Original file (00602-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 November 2009. The MEB established final diagnoses of metatarsalgia and gastroc equinus and recommended that your case be reviewed by the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). The Board concluded that your receipt of disability ratings from the VA for eight conditions that were not rated by the PEB is not considered probative of the existence of error or...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06573-06

    Original file (06573-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100JREDocket No. 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...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00955

    Original file (PD2011-00955.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    We feel that this warrants a review for a consideration to The Permanent Disabled Retired List.” He elaborates no specific contentions regarding rating or coding and mentions no additionally contended conditions. The Board however noted a neurology clinic record dated 21 May 2007 that indicated the CI was not using CPAP, that prescribed medication completely controlled the cataplexy, and that medication was also controlling his daytime sleepiness. At the time of the 26 March 2010 C&P...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015455

    Original file (20130015455.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    For his service-connected medical conditions, the VA proposed: * Obstructive Sleep Apnea, claimed as exercise-induced asthma, 50% * Degenerative disc disease, lumbar spine, claimed as back pain, 10% * Tinnitus, 10% * Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, 10% * Right hand strain, left hand strain, cervical strain, right knee degenerative disc disease, left knee degenerative disc disease, allergic rhinitis, enteritis, GERD, and migraines, 0% each 15. (2) Tinnitus (MEB...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00606

    Original file (PD2010-00606.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    after discharge for narcolepsy (20%) rating the following would be the correct code for condition. My VA rating for this condition is 50%. I would ask the board to please review all unfitting conditions that would have applied.” He additionally mentions his VA conditions and ratings per the rating chart below.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04043-07

    Original file (04043-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.On 6 November 2006, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) made preliminary findings that you were fit...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00423

    Original file (PD2009-00423.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    She was issued a permanent Limited Duty (LIMDU) and underwent a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) in early 2004 which referred the conditions of fibromyalgia, status post breast reduction, depression, and asthma to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) where the CI was found fit for duty. Fibromyalgia Condition . The Board notes that the VA did service-connect the CI’s PTSD and rated it 10% connoting mild or transient symptoms or symptoms controlled by continuous medication.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00120

    Original file (PD2012-00120.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    She was then medically separated with a 20% disability rating. A C&P examination for mental illness was performed on 21 August 2006, 2 months after separation, and the examiner noted a GAF of 70 to 80 with a diagnosis of mood disorder secondary to medical condition. After due deliberation in consideration of the preponderance of the evidence, the Board concluded that there was insufficient cause to recommend a change in the PEB fitness determination for the mood disorders due to narcolepsy...