DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DG 20370-5100 .
JRE
Docket No. 01986-09
12 June 2009
Dear wa a
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 29 May 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 enlisted in the Marine Corps on 2
October 1972. You absented yourself without authority on 31
October 1974. As a result of that absence, you missed an
appointment with an orthopedic surgeon who was to evaluate your
knee condition. You returned to military control on 27 January
1975, and the appointment with the orthopedic surgeon was
rescheduled for 5 March 1975. On 27 February 1975, you
requested to be discharged for the good of the service in lieu
of trial by court-martial for unauthorized absence. On 3 March
1975 you were apprehended by civil authorities for dragging a
fellow Marine under a bridge, robbing him, and throwing him in a
river, whereupon you threw rocks at him. You request for
discharge for the good of the service was approved by the
discharge authority on 11 March 1975, and you were separated
from the Marine Corps with an undesirable discharge on 21 March
1975,
Although you apparently suffered from a knee condition during
your naval service, you have not demonstrated that you were
unfit to reasonably perform the duties of your rank by reason of
physical disability on the date of your discharge. In addition,
the Board noted that you would not have been entitled to
disability separation or retirement even if you have been unfit
for duty, because disability evaluation processing would have
been precluded by the approval of your request for discharge for
the good of the service. Accordingly, and as you have not
demonstrated that it would be in the interest of justice for the
Board to upgrade your discharge or change the reason and
authority for your separation, 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,
Vou G ,
t
W. DEAN PFEDURFE
Executive Dilrac
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07119-05
Documentary material considered by she 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 served on active duty in the Marine Corps from 10 September 2001 to 14...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 05891-98
In addition, it is a surgery that is frequently performed in the event of graft impingement after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, when a patient fails to return to full extension, as in this case. On 9/20, the patient underwent the procedure, a right knee anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft. His motion at that time was 0-100 degrees of flexion.
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02188
Left Knee Condition . Post-SepFlexion (140 Normal)13014095Extension (0 Normal)00-10CommentMild effusion; left thigh atrophy; neg lachman and posterior drawer; no valgus or varus instability; crepitus notedOccasional use of an assistive device.Painful motion noted; Four months post-operative from post separation surgery.§4.71a Rating10%10%10%The Board directed attention to its rating recommendationbased on the above evidence.The VA and PEB both rated the knee at 10% based on examinations...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05732-01
On 12 April 2000, the PEB made preliminary findings that he was unfit for duty because of chondromalacia findings on 21 April 2000, and apparently was advised that he would be discharged patella, right knee, which it rated at 10% disabling. ’s record be ’s It did not effect the corrective e. After being advised of the denial of his initial application, Petitioner submitted his present application, in which he contended that his release from active duty was erroneous, and that his record...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01797
Right Knee Pain Condition . The right knee demonstrated normal strength and full ROM (0-0-132degrees) without tenderness, swelling, erythema, warmth, deformity or ligamentous laxity. The right knee ROM reported at the MEB examination and in the service treatment records in the months prior to separation, consistently documented near normal ROM.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12383-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on i0 December 2009. The Board found that RE-3P is the most favorable reentry code that may be assigned to the Marine being discharged by reason of physical disability. 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06515-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 September 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...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00352
However, upon reconsideration with further evidence from the Senior Medical Board Orthopedic Surgeon the PEB determined the CI was unfit and he was then separated with a 10% disability for 5299-5003 Medial Meniscus Transplant using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Ratings Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Navy and Department of Defense regulations. The VA does not seem to understand this procedure as well due the fact the VA rates my right knee as an ACL replacement, meniscal repair...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 06064-03
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 October 2003. The fact that the VA has given you a disability for the residuals of your knee injury is not probative of error or injustice in your military record, because the VA awards disability ratings without regard to the issue of fitness for military duty. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03528
Addressing the applicants fitness to serve, the AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report, is a key tool utilized by Air Force providers to indicate whether a service member is under care for a medical condition affecting duty, mobility or requires a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultants evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He disputes the facts in the BCMR Medical Consultants advisory. He knows three...