DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No. 01826-08
2 March 2009
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 26 February 2009. 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. In this regard, the Board was not persuaded
that you were unfit for duty by reason of physical disability
due to a hearing loss or decreased visual acuity at the time of
your voluntary discharge from the Navy. As you know, a medical
board found you fit for duty on 23 August 1971, notwithstanding
your bilateral hearing loss. Although it is possible that you
were suffering from the initial stages of retinitis pigmentosa
prior to your discharge, that condition is hereditary in nature
and would not have been ratable by the Disability Evaluation
System. You would not have been entitled to disability benefits
for that condition even if it had been service-incurred or
aggravated, because it did not render you unfit for duty at that
time. In this regard, the Board found that your visual acuity
was recorded as 20/20, 20/30 in the report of your pre-
separation physical examination. In addition, the Board noted
that you requested early separation from the Navy, and
specifically waived your right to further military medical care
as part of that request.
In view of the foregoing, 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,
\p
4
W. DEAN PFE
Executive Dir
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03004-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 June 2011. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00093-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 June 1999. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01341
SEPARATION DATE: 20041104 At theophthalmology examination performed on 30 October 2003, the CI was unable to count fingers at ten inches in front of his left eye and at following ophthalmology examination dated 3 November 2003; theexaminer opined that current objective eye findings, non-physiologic vision loss could be a factor.Anophthalmology consultation dated 10 December 2003, noted the CI’s subjective complaint of inability to see from the left eye and also that “exams indicate vision...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02321
The eye conditions, characterized as “mild traumatic cataract,” “decreased vision,” and “cystoid macular edema” of the left eye, were forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501.No other conditions were submitted by the MEB.The Informal PEBcombined the MEB diagnoses as a single unfitting condition, rated 10% under criteria of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The Board also acknowledges the CI’s information regarding the occupational impediments due to his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140002375
The applicant states he was discharged for weight control failure under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 18, but he injured his left eye in January 2005. b. Paragraph 3-16e states vision that cannot be corrected with ordinary spectacle lenses to at least 20/40 in one eye and 20/100 in the other eye or 20/30 in one eye and 20/200 in the other eye, or 20/20 in one eye and 20/800 in the other eye are causes for referral to an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110023637
The applicant requests correction of his 1988 physical evaluation board (PEB) rating. The NARSUM shows he underwent full examination of the eyes due to status post perforating injury, left eye with aphakia, which revealed a visual acuity of 20/20 of the right eye and 20/80 of the left eye. He underwent an MEB which recommended that he be considered by a PEB.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063506C070421
On 4 January 1996, the applicant underwent a medical evaluation board (MEB). On 16 April 1996, an informal PEB found the applicant to be physically unfit due to probable acute zonal occult outer retinopathy with suspected glaucoma, strabismus, and facial neuralgia, Veterans Affairs Schedule of Rating Disabilities (VASRD) codes 6099 (diseases of the eye, unlisted conditions), 6006 (retinitis), and 6078 (impairment of central visual acuity, vision in one eye 20/100). On 30 October 2001, a...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-01042
The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) adjudicated the visual field deficit right eye condition as unfitting, rated 30%, and placed the CI on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL). At the time the CI was placed on the TDRL, the PEB rated the visual field deficit condition at 30% under a combination VASRD code reflecting that an impairment of visual field (code 6080) was possibly due to TB (6010). In the matter of the right eye visual field condition, the Board unanimously recommends a...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03941
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the applicant had an existing prior to service (EPTS) eye condition that was waived at the time of his enlistment and he completed his four-year term of service receiving an honorable discharge. His eye condition was noted in his enlistment, periodic, and separation medical examinations, and there was no evidence...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02336-00
You were evaluated by a Navy psychiatrist on 11 March 1997, and reported that you felt the Paxil was helping and that you were feeling much better. The increase was based on a report of treatment dated 30 November 1998, and a VA rating examination conducted on 4 May 1999, which indicated your depressive symptoms had increased in severity The Board noted that in order to qualify for disability separation or retirement from the Armed Forces, a service member must be found unfit to perform the...