DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No. 02748-08
25 November 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 20 November 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 your attorney appeared before a hearing
panel of the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) on 13 June 1996,
and requested that you be assigned separate disability ratings
of 10% under Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) codes 5299-5276
and 5276-5003 for bilateral flat feet and a painful toe. The
rationale of the hearing panel indicates that you were assigned
10% ratings under VA code 5299-5271 and 5276-5003. The 5271
code appears to be a typographical error, as it applies to
limitation of motion of an ankle, whereas the correct code of
5279 applies to a toe condition. The President, PEB, published
the findings of the hearing panel on 1 July 1996, and corrected
them to show that you were assigned ratings under codes 5299-
5279 and 5276-5003. You were notified of those findings on 9
July 1996. Your PEB file contains an undated letter to then
Senator Mosely-Braun in which you acknowledged that you had not
rebutted the findings of the PEB, and requested that your
separation be expedited.
In view of the foregoing, and as you have not demonstrated that
you should have received a combined disability rating of 30% or
higher, your request for correction of your record to show that
you were retired by reason of physical disability 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,
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00402
The CI underwent the first MEB exam for bilateral lower leg pain. Alternative coding using the VA rating separating the tendinosis from the Morton neuroma disabilities was also considered reasonable, but would also raise the military- 3 PD1200402 specific issue of fitness when the NARSUM did not specify duty impairment from any mid, or distal foot condition. RECOMMENDATION: The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no recharacterization of the CI’s disability and separation...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00592
The CI was referred to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), determined unfit for the Sinus Tarsi Syndrome condition, and separated at 10% disability using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Naval and Department of Defense regulations. The CI was separated on 20020814 for Sinus Tarsi Syndrome with chronic bilateral foot and ankle pain rated analogously as code 5279, Metatarsalgia, anterior, (Morton’s Disease), unilateral or bilateral, which assigns...
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00996
The Board therefore has no reasonable basis for recommending the ankle condition for separation rating. The Board therefore has no reasonable basis for recommending any additional unfitting conditions for separation rating. I have reviewed the subject case pursuant to reference (a) and, for the reasons set forth in reference (b), approve the recommendation of the Physical Disability Board of Review Mr. XXXX’s records not be corrected to reflect a change in either his characterization of...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01283
Low back pain (LBP) and right foot pain conditions were forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501. -- 210No mention of painful motionPain with motion0% 10%The Board directs attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence.After consideration of the two back examinations noted above, it was determined that both exams had probative value, since both were conducted in a thorough manner, and were performed within 6 months of separation. Right Foot Pain .
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08366-00
TO SUPPORT HIS REQUEST THE MEMBER PRESENTED TESTIMONY AND COPIES OF HIS V.A. THE RECORD DOCUMENTS THAT THE MEMBER HAD CHRONIC LEFT SHOULDER KNEE, AND FOOT PAIN THAT LIMITED HIS ACTIVITIES DUE TO THE ABOVE DIAGNOSES. THE TDRL EVALUATION INDICATES THAT SINCE PLACEMENT ON THE TDRL THE MEMBER HAS UNDERGONE A LEFT ROTATOR CUFF REPAIR IN OCTOBER 1998 BUT CONTINUES TO HAVE CHRONIC SHOULDER PAIN.
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01894
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 | CY2013 | PD2013 00925
The “chronic pain, multiples cites [ sic ]”characterized as “mechanical thoracic and lumbar back pain,, “right knee pain,” “right ankle pain,” “right foot sesamoiditis and metatarsalgia,”“left knee pain,” and “left foot and ankle pain,” were forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501. Bilateral knee condition . X-rays were normal for both knees.
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-00842
The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) adjudicated the chronic left foot pain due to sprain of the 5th metatarsal cuboid and plantar fasciitis conditions as unfitting, rated 10%. Pre-Separation) All Effective Date 20040204 Condition Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam Chronic Left Foot Pain due to Sprain 5th Metatarsal Cuboid and Plantar Fasciitis 5299-5279 10% Bilateral Plantar Fasciitis 5299-5276 10% 20031216 Dysthymic Disorder Not Unfitting Dysthymic Disorder 9433 10% 20031204 .No...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01465
The knee and feet conditions, characterized as “right medial and lateral meniscal tears” and “bilateral foot pain”, were the only two conditions forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501.The Informal PEB combined the two conditions and adjudicated “chronic pain, right knee and bilateral feet”as unfitting, rated 10%,citing the US Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) pain policy.The CI made no appeals and was medically separated. The Board’s assessment of the PEB...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01998
Pain medication required.” *VARD dated 25 July 2008 rated Posterior Tibial Tendonitis, right ankle 10% using code 5271 effective 24 March 2008 and Posterior Tibial Tendonitis, left ankle 10% using code 5271 effective 24 March 2008 and retained a 30% rating using code 5299-5276 for bilateral pes planus and plantar fasciitis (previously evaluated as posterior tibial tendon dysfunction bilaterally, plantar fasciitis bilaterally) ANALYSIS SUMMARY :The Board acknowledges the CI’s information...