DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No. 02433-08
12 December 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 11 December 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 that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.
The Board found that you originally enlisted in the Navy on 19
March 1971. On 10 October 1979, a medical board gave you a
diagnosis of psychophysiological gastrointestinal disorder, and
referred you to the Central Physical Evaluation Board (CPEB).
The CPEB found you fit for duty in December 1979. You underwent
a pre-separation physical examination on 23 February 1980, and
were found qualified for separation notwithstanding your history
of gastrointestinal conditions and migraine headaches. You were
honorably discharged on 25 February 1980, pursuant to your
request for an early discharge in order to attend college. You
were assigned a reenlistment code of RE-R1l to indicate that you
were fully qualified and recommended for reenlistment at that
time.
A Veterans Administration (VA) rating decision dated 13 May 1981
indicates that you were examined at a VA facility on 31 December
1980. You presented evidence showing that a pre-pyloric benign
gastric ulcer was noted during an examination conducted in May
1980. The VA examiner diagnosed a psychogenic pain disorder and
a small hiatal hernia with a moderate amount of gastroesophageal
reflux. He also found evidence consistent with old peptic ulcer
disease. He did not identify an acute ulcer, but found evidence
suggestive of some component of ongoing peptic ulcer disease.
The VA granted you a disability rating of 10% for a hiatal
hernia with psychophysiological gastrointestinal disorder,
history of peptic ulcer, history of cholecystectomy; and a
separate 10% rating for migraine headaches. Those ratings were
effective from the day following your discharge from the Navy.
The rating for the headache condition was increased to 30%
effective 25 August 1982.
In order to be retired by reason of physical disability, a
service member who has not completed sufficient service to
qualify for length of service retirement must be unfit to
reasonably perform his or her duties because of a physical
disability rated at 30% or higher. You have not demonstrated
that you met meet either of those criteria as of 25 February
1980. As indicated above, you were found fit for duty in
December 1979, and physically qualified for separation on 23
February 1980. It appears that you and you could have remained
on active duty and reenlisted had you wanted to do so. The
Board did not accept your unsubstantiated contention to the
effect that you were denied the opportunity to reenlist because
you had five “active ulcers”. It noted that a former Sailor may
be found unqualified for reenlistment after a break in service
if there is a change in the Sailor’s physical condition and/or
applicable procurement physical standards
In view of the foregoing, your application has been denied.
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,
\y
W. DEAN PFET
Executive Di
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070001054
The PEB rated him at 10 percent under VASRD 9421, somatization disorder, for use of medications to control the symptoms of that particular diagnosed condition. Evidence of record shows the military only found one psychiatric condition to be present and unfitting when he was placed on the TDRL (conversion disorder) and he agreed with the initial diagnosis and rating of that condition. There is insufficient evidence to show the applicants PEB disability ratings are incorrect or that his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140013801
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his military records to show his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and a peptic ulcer were service-connected or combat-related for award of Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC). He is requesting that the Boards review all of the evidence and grant his claim for PTSD and his ulcer condition under CRSC for hazardous service and/or simulating war. The PEB was approved on 18 December 1984. d. A DA Form 3713 (Data for Retired Pay),...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03293-08
; A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 June 2009. 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-2013-01609
The Informal PEB adjudicated “chronic abdominal pain, status post a cholecystectomy” and “schizoaffective disorder with PTSD, requiring psychotropic medications” as unfitting, rated 10% and ---% respectively, citing application of the US Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) pain policy for the abdominal pain and EPTS without permanent service aggravation to the schizoaffective disorder. The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060003422C070205
He further requests, in effect, that his records be corrected to show that he was also found to be unfit for duty due to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and that this disability was a direct result of armed conflict and/or was caused by an instrumentality of war. The applicant states that he believes an error was made during his formal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) hearing in that his back injury and PTSD were not coded on the DA Form 199. The applicant’s back condition does not...
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00329
The VA rating decision on 13 February 2008, two months post-separation, rated the conditions separately with the OSA condition, code 6847 (sleep apnea syndromes), rated 50%. The VA rating decision two months post-separation on 13 February 2008 rated the conditions separately, with the panic disorder with agoraphobia condition, code 9412 (panic disorder and/or agoraphobia), rated at 10%. Exhibit C. Department of Veterans' Affairs Treatment Record
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140004884
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his records to show the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), dated 24 September 2009: * Granted him a higher disability rating under the Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) for his medical condition * rated him for other medical conditions that were not diagnosed until after he was discharged from the Army 2. A VA Rating Decision, dated 19 May 2011, wherein it shows, effective 10 October 2010, the VA granted...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03094874C070212
c. The Board, in denying his request, indicated that the evidence showed that he was physically fit for duty at the time of his separation in 1989, and also noted that he served on active duty for a year between 1994 and 1995. f. A 21 August 1992 line of duty investigation, submitted by the applicant with his request, revealed that the applicant had various medical conditions while on active duty. There is no evidence, and the applicant has not submitted any, to show that he is receiving a...
NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400180
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks an upgrade to qualify for G.I. ” 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018046
Based on a review of the medical and personnel evidence of record, and considering the physical requirements for reasonable performance of duties required by his grade and MOS, the PEB found the applicant fit for duty within the limitations of his profile. The Army must find that a service member is physically unfit to reasonably perform his or her duties and assign an appropriate disability rating before that service member can be medically separated or retired. The PEB determined he was...