DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No. 07914-0608
20 July 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 9 July 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 you were evaluated by a physical evaluation
board (PEB) on 26 January 2001 and found unfit for duty because
of bilateral patellofemoral syndrome which was ratable at 10%
disabling. A second condition, Grave’s disease, was classified
as not separately unfitting or contributing to the unfitting
knee condition. You accepted the findings of the PEB on 30
January 2001 and were discharged with entitlement to disability
severance pay on 15 March 2001. On 4 May 2001, the Department of
Veterans Affairs awarded you disability ratings of 20% for
headaches, separate ratings of 10% for bilateral patellofemoral
syndrome, hypertension, Graves disease, and an adjustment
disorder, and 0% ratings for conditions of your feet, chest and
skin.
The Board concluded that your receipt of substantial disability
ratings from the VA is not probative of the existence of error
or injustice in your naval record, because the VA assigned those
ratings without regard to the issue of your fitness for military
duty. As you have not demonstrated that any of the conditions
rated by the VA, other than patellofemoral syndrome, rendered
you unfit to reasonably perform the duties of your office,
grade, rank or rating at the time of your discharge, the Board
was unable to recommend corrective action in your case.
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 Qooed
W. DEAN PFET
Executive Dix
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00467
The CI was referred to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), determined unfit for continued military service, and separated at 10% disability using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Ratings Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Air Force and Department of Defense regulations. I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board. The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating XXXXXXXXXX be corrected to show that the diagnoses in her...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00231
The PEB adjudicated the bilateral patella femoral syndrome condition as unfitting, rated 10%, with application of the Veteran’s Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). Effective January 2005, the VA assigned separate ratings of 10% for each knee based on new examination evidence supporting separate ratings for each knee. The Board noted that PEBs often combine multiple conditions under a single rating when those conditions considered individually are not separately unfitting and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00602-09
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...
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-01261
The PEB adjudicated the patellofemoral syndrome bilateral as unfitting, rated 10%, with application the Veterans’ Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The PEB on 9 October 2002, three months prior to separation, found patellofemoral syndrome, bilateral, unfitting, coded 5299-5003 (arthritis, degenerative) with a rating of 10%. The VA rationale noted that the ratings were non-compensable because the C&P examination documented full ROM without pain, no instability and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010223
The PEB determined the applicant's conditions rendered him unfit and afforded him a 10 percent disability evaluation and recommended he by discharged with severance pay. Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual's medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for VA benefits based on an evaluation by that agency. The Army...
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD 2014 00941
No other conditions were submitted by the MEB.The Informal PEB adjudicated “right knee pain, patellofemoral syndrome with history of medial meniscus injury”and “left knee pain, patellofemoral syndrome” both as unfitting, rated at 0% each, referencing application of DoD guidance for application of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD).The CI made no appeals and was medically separated. There was no ligamentous instability or meniscus problem or for consideration under respective...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06525-02
member had a history of hyperthyroidism which is The member appeared before the formal board requesting ratings for his low back pain, ankylosis. his patellofemoral syndrome, and hip These The member With reference to the member's hyperthyroidism, he testified this was diagnosed in March 1998. accident he had in 1997. medical record. The member appeared before the formal PEB case file, Remarkably, no where in the member's or even in his letter to the PEB dated hip ankylosis, appears the...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00657
The CI was referred to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), determined unfit for continued Naval service, and separated at a 20% combined disability using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Naval and Department of Defense regulations. The Board rates unfitting conditions based on the medical evidence of functional impairment IAW the VASRD. Prior to 2008 the military service PEBs generally did not recognize pain limited range of motion or painful...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00377
After the second periodic TDRL Re-Evaluation, the CI was referred to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), determined unfit for the condition, and separated at 0% disability using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Ratings Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Naval and Department of Defense regulations. The military disability rating must be determined by the CI’s condition at the time of separation from the TDRL and her condition at that time warrants a 10% rating. Only conditions the CI was...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00502
CI was referred to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), found unfit for continued naval service and separated at 0% disability using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Ratings Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Navy and Department of Defense regulations. In both knees, flexion was limited by 5 degrees by pain and extension was limited by 15 degrees by pain on both active and passive motion. The first and only documentation of any significant ROM impairment was at the VA rating examination...