DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No. 02771-09
7 dune 2010
lication 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 28 May
2010. 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, reguiations 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.
You were discharged From the Navy on 25 January 2006 by reason of
alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure. Effective 26 January 2006,
the Department of Veterans affairs (VA) awarded you separate
disability ratings of 10% for a knee condition, bradycardia and a
depressive disorder, and 0% ratings for high blood pressure and
facial and head trauma with residuals of scar Formation. On 2 October
2009, the VA awarded you a rating of 40% for a mild traumatic brain
injury based on ite determination that there was objective evidence
of what appeared to be a brain injury with resulting mild impairment
of your judgment. It attributed the foregoing an injury you sustained
on 28 February 1994, when you were struck on the head with a bottle.
Your receipt of 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 on 26 January 2006. As you have not demonstrated
that you were unfit to reasonably perform the duties of your office,
grade, rank or rating by reason of physical disability on that date,
was unable to recommend any 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,
DQoar
W. DEAN P
Executive \wibector
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03466-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 April 2010. You enlisted in the Navy on 29 July 2005. 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 | CY2008 | 07559-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 September 2008. In a letter dated 29 November 1999, a psychiatrist with a Louisiana State University student health center stated that you had an organic mental disorder with depression and a personality disorder, both secondary to a severe head injury you suffered as a teenager. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00248
Neurologic examination performed on December 3, 2004 was normal and he was ambulating without difficulty. However, the Board also noted residuals of frontal lobe injury not merely restricted to mild memory dysfunction that included problems other cognitive functions (decreased verbal processing, attention, and concentration), irritability, anger, and problems with impulse control reflected in neuropsychological testing and the initial VA mental health clinic encounter 9 months after...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02275-07
02275-0727 May 2008This 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 8 May 2008. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes,...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00596
The PEB adjudicated the mild cognitive dysfunction condition as unfitting, rated 10%; with application of the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). A general C&P exam 10 months prior to separation, stated that in addition to his daily headaches and dizziness, the CI had experienced ten episodes of syncope over the past year, had not been able to work since the head injury, and had “significant functional impairment as he cannot concentrate,” although he was...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00543
The IPEB considered the case, and found him unfit for continued military service due to Chronic Achilles Tendinosis. As noted above, the CI underwent MEB/PEB, and the Right Achilles Tendinosis (coded 5284) was rated at 10% disability. Based on that evaluation, the VA assigned a rating of 10% for Traumatic Brain Injury with Headaches (coded 8045-8100), 10% for Cognitive Disorder with Sleep Disorder (coded 8045-9304), and 10% for Tinnitus (coded 6260).
CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2010-126
The applicant also acknowledged that the medical board’s opinions and recommendations were not binding on the Coast Guard and that his case was subject to further review and final disposition by higher authority. The [IPEB] recommends that he should be permanently retired at a disability rating of 30%. The applicant requested a correction of his record to show that he was retired due to physical disability with a 100% disability rating instead of the 30% rating he actually received.
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00420
The CI, found unfit only for the PTSD condition, was determined unfit for continued military service and separated at 10% disability using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Ratings Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Navy and Department of Defense regulations. The CI completed his deployment and on return to the States had increasing symptoms of TBI including headaches, cognitive defects and a diagnosis of PTSD. Regarding TBI as a possible new unfitting condition: As noted in the...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00632
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW BRANCH OF SERVICE: MARINE CORPS SEPARATION DATE: 20020331 NAME: XXX CASE NUMBER: PD1200632 BOARD DATE: 20130214 SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an Active Duty LCpl/E-3 (4066/Small Computer System), medically separated for post-concussive migraine headaches (HA). The Board agreed while the VA used the analogous TBI code to subsume the concussion...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08797-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 June 2010. Your receipt of a combined disability rating of 10% from the VA shortly after you were released from active duty is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record because those ratings were assigned without regard to the issue of your fitness for military duty on 25 June 1985. Consequently, when applying for a correction of...