DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
OARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 JRE
Docket No. 651-09
25 February 2009
This is in refere
naval record purs
United States Cod
A three-member pa
Records, sitting
application on 12
injustice were re
pee to your application for correction of your
ant to the provisions of title 10 of the
e, section 1552.
mel of the Board for Correction of Naval
in executive session, considered your
February 2009. Your allegations of error and
viewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Board. Documenta
of your applicati
support thereof,
regulations and p
ry material considered by the Board consisted
on, together with all material submitted in
your naval record and applicable statutes,
olicies.
After careful an
record, the Boar
insufficient to
error or injusti
The Board found t
1992 for two yeay
examination on 2]
separation. You
despite your coms
myofascial pain,
classified as “Nd
physician who con
29 September 1994
active duty/high
M4
conscientious consideration of the entire
found that the evidence submitted was
stablish the existence of probable material
e.
hat you reenlisted in the Navy on 30 September
s. You underwent a pre-separation physical
June 1994 and were found qualified for
stated that your health was. “good” at that time
laints of shortness of breath, chest, back and
and history of hypertension, each of which was
D” (not considered disqualifying) by the
ducted the examination. You were discharged on
, in grade E-4, by reason of non-retention on
year tenure.
On 9 March 1995,
you 0% disability
pseudofolliculiti
little finger, an
denied your reque
conditions. Altho
not warrant indiv
determined that t
“clearly” present
handicap” which w
combined rating w
and to 50% effect
Your receipt of a
does not demonstr
naval record. In
assigned that rat
for military duty
from active duty.
was incurred in o
service, and adju
occupational and/
conditions,
the mi
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded
ratings for lumbosacral strain,
s| barbae, myofascial pain syndrome, a scar on
d arthritis of the cervical spine. The VA
st for service connection for three other
ugh you had numerous minor conditions that did
jidual compensable ratings, VA rating officials
he combination of those minimal disabilities
ed you with an unspecified “employment
arranted a combined overall rating of 10%. Ther
as increased to 40% effective 2 December 1998,
ive 30 August 2006.
compensable disability rating on 9 March 1995
ate the existence of error or injustice in your
this regard, the Board noted that the VA
ing without regard to the issue of your fitness
on 29 September 1994, when you were released
Although the VA may rate any condition that
tw aggravated by a veteran's period of military
gt assigned ratings to reflect changes in the
or social impairment caused by rated
litary departments may assign disability
ratings only in those cases where a service member has been
found unfit to re
of physical disab
separation or per
thereafter, unles
erroneous or unju
In view of the fo
you were unfit fo
disability on 29
recommend any cor
application has b
of the panel will
It is regretted t
that favorable ac
the Board reconsi
material evidence
the Board. In th
a presumption of
Consequently, whe
sonably perform his military duties by reason
lity. Ratings are fixed as of the date of
anent retirement and may not be adjusted
the Board determines that the ratings are
t.
egoing, and as you have not demonstrated that
further service by reason of physical
eptember 1994, the Board was unable to
ective action in your case. Accordingly, your
een denied. The names and votes of the members
be furnished upon request.
hat the circumstances of your case are such
tion cannot be taken. You are entitled to have
jer its decision upon submission of new and
or other matter not previously considered by
is regard, it is important to keep in mind that
regularity attaches to all official records.
h 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,
Lug
W. DEAN P FREER
Executive eljtor
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00071
ROMs were pain limited to Cervical: 30˚/190˚, and Thoracolumbar 30˚/140˚. Although Physical Evaluation Board findings showed that your chronic cervical and thoracic pain was secondary to myofascial pain syndrome, VA finding showed instability of the cervical spine with limited range of motion, and chronic sprain, with scoliosis thoracolumbar spine, with limited range of motion which warrant the higher evaluation. The Cervical spine condition rating of 5021-5237 at 20% for forward flexion...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09521-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 July 2009. Your receipt of disability ratings from the VA for numerous conditions that were not evaluated or rated by the PEB 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, and you have not demonstrated that any of those conditions...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 03548-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 1 May 2001. 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-2013-01213
Myofascial Back Pain Condition . is unable to carry a weapon [and] was returned from a deployed location because of his condition and is not deployable.” The narrative summarydated 16 December 2003 addressed noted the CI’s history of lower back pain and the various treatments and added he was “experiencing limitations at work, home, and social activitiessecondary to his back pain.” He had a full ROM with tenderness of the midline/paraspinal area from L2-S1 and the examination was otherwise...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00882
The PEB adjudicated the chronic myofascial back pain condition as unfitting, rated 20%, with application of the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). After due deliberation in consideration of the preponderance of the evidence, the Board concluded that there was insufficient cause to recommend a change in the PEB fitness determination for the contended condition; and, therefore, no additional disability ratings can be recommended. I have carefully reviewed the...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 00825
The Board then considered its rating recommendation for the condition at the time of separation. The Board then considered its rating recommendation for the condition at the time of separation. RECOMMENDATION: The Board recommends that the CIs prior determination be modified as follows, effective as of the date of his prior medical separation: UNFITTING CONDITION VASRD CODE RATING Chronic Low Back Pain 5237 10% Chronic Neck/Upper Back Myofascial Pain Syndrome 5099-5021 0 COMBINED 10% The...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD 2013 00870
The back pain condition, characterized as “chronic myofascial thoracic pain syndrome,” was forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) as not meeting medical standards IAW AFI 48-123. X-rays and computer aided tomograms of the spine done as part of his work up were normal without evidence of fracture or disc problem.The MEB narrative summary (NARSUM) dated 24 May 2007,7 months prior to separation,described in the physical examination that the CI demonstrated “…normal gait and station,...
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-01293
In the matter of the neck pain condition, the Board unanimously recommends a disability rating of 10%, IAW VASRD §4.71a. RECOMMENDATION : The Board recommends that the CI’s prior determination be modified as follows, effective as of the date of her prior medical separation: Right Shoulder Pain, due to Myofascial Pain Syndrome5099-502110%Right Neck Pain, due to Myofascial Pain Syndrome5290-502110% COMBINED20% The following documentary evidence was considered:
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00634
The 7 September 2004 PEB found the CI unfit for status post PE, resolved, rated at 0% disability with category II and III (not unfitting/not compensable) diagnoses of OSA, PFS, myofascial pain (new diagnosis), chronic fatigue secondary to deconditioning, and obesity. The examiner opined that the CI had a history of bilateral PE, but was doing well on coumadin therapy; however, the etiology of the chronic joint pain was unclear. The PEB applied the code 6354 (chronic fatigue syndrome [CFS])...
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-02109
The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of theVASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. A pain specialist opined that thoracic and lumbar spondylosis and myofascial pain were the causes of the back pain, although imaging studies of the thoracic spine were normal. In the matter of the chronic thoracolumbar back pain condition and IAW VASRD §4.71a, the Board...