DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
. ‘BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No. 07831-08
24 August 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 20 August 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.
The Board found that on 30 July 1997, the Physical Evaluation
Board (PEB) determined that you were unfit for duty because of
asthma, which it rated at 10% disabling. The PEB also
determined that your major depression, single episode,,
resolved, and panic disorder with agoraphobia, in remission,
were not separately unfitting and did not contribute to the
unfitting condition You accepted those findings on & August
1997 contingent upon your being retained on active duty for a
period of 60 to 90 days. You were discharged by reason of
_ physical disability on 15 December 1997, with entitlement to
disability severance pay.
The Board did not accept your unsubstantiated contentions to the
effect that you did not receive the correct rating for asthma
and that the PEB did not consider “all unfitting conditions”.
The fact that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rated the
asthma at 30% is not probative of the existence or error or
injustice in your naval record because ratings assigned by the
VA are not binding on the military departments, and there ig no
indication in the VA rating decision which demonstrates that you
should have received a higher rating from the Department of the
Navy. 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.
Consequentiy, 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,
Winans
W. DEAN P R
Executive tor
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05056-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 May 2001. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and In addition, the Board considered the comments applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04184-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 November 2002. On 9 June 1997, the PEB found you unfit for duty because of your back pain, which it rated at severance pay. 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 | CY2013 | PD-2013-02407
SEPARATION DATE: 20050608 The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the VASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. Accordingly, the Board recommended your separation be re-characterized to reflect disability retirement, rather than separation with severance pay.I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board.
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-00018
Separation Date: 20060127 The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the VASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. Accordingly, the Board recommended your separation be re-characterized to reflect disability retirement, rather than separation with severance pay.I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09780-06
A three-member pan~1 of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 November 2006. The member’s medical record and service record were not available for review.After careful review of all the available evidence and based on unanimous opinion, the Formal PEB finds the member is unfit for continued naval service because of physical disability due to BRONCHIAL ASTHMA. He expressed his belief that had he not done so his condition...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073073C070403
On 15 April 1996, the Army Recruiting Command Surgeon indicated she was medically disqualified, but granted the applicant a medical waiver for her history of asthma with a physical profile of 211111B. It was also noted by members of the MMRB that she had this medical condition prior to military service. It also provides for the physical disability retirement of a member who has at least 20 years of service or a disability rated at least 30 percent.
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02584
The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the VASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. Asthma Condition . 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...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02603
The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. Pulmonary function tests (PFTs) were done that day, but an hour after the use of an inhaler; no studies off of medications were in evidence. BOARD FINDINGS : IAW DoDI 6040.44, provisions of DoD or Military Department...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00427
The CI was therefore medically separated with a 10% disability rating. Asthma Condition . Given the consistent record of the CI’s being prescribed and using daily medication, the CI meets the 30% criteria of “daily inhalational or oral bronchodilator therapy, or; inhalational anti-inflammatory medication.” All evidence considered, the Board recommends coding 6602 at 30% as the fair, permanent separation rating for Asthma in this case.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03507-02
December 1997, the PEB made preliminary findings that you remained unfit for duty, and that your disability was ratable at 20%. VA code 527 1 provides for a 20% rating for marked limitation of motion of the ankle, and 10% for moderate limitation of motion. 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.