DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
CRS
Docket No: 3985-09
24 April 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 22 April 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 Navy on 24 July 2008.
You were examined by an ophthalmologist on 1 August 2008 to
determine if you suffered from retinitis pigmentosa (RP), and
because of your complaints of tunnel vision/lack of peripheral
vision and possible night blindness. The ophthalmologist felt
that your condition was most likely an atypical form of RP
without many of the normal hallmarks of that condition; however,
he did note areas of degeneration of your retinas with pigmented
clumps, atrophic holes and a choroidal nevus. He determined that
you had visual field defects that were incompatible with military
service and recommended that you be processed for an entry level
separation. On 28 August 2008, you were discharged by reason of
your failure to meet medical/physical procurements standards with
an entry level separation.
The Board did not accept your contention to the effect that you
met applicable medical procurement standards, and that you were
therefore discharged in error. As indicated above, you were
disqualified from service due to a Significant visual field
defect. It 1S immaterial whether or not the disqualifying defect
was caused by RP or some other undiagnosed condition, such as
optic neuropalhy or congenital nignt blindness as suggested by
the retinal specialists you consulted after you were discharged
from the Navy. The Board concluded that you failed to
demonstrate it would be in the interest of justice for it to
restore you to active duty or to change the basis of your
discharge. 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,
dS DDN b
W. DEAN PFB
Executive D
x
Nh
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063506C070421
On 4 January 1996, the applicant underwent a medical evaluation board (MEB). On 16 April 1996, an informal PEB found the applicant to be physically unfit due to probable acute zonal occult outer retinopathy with suspected glaucoma, strabismus, and facial neuralgia, Veterans Affairs Schedule of Rating Disabilities (VASRD) codes 6099 (diseases of the eye, unlisted conditions), 6006 (retinitis), and 6078 (impairment of central visual acuity, vision in one eye 20/100). On 30 October 2001, a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050018217C070206
His retinitis pigmentosa was determined to be congenital, existing prior to his entrance onto active duty with no aggravation by his military service. The opinion states the applicant's disability processing was proper and the preponderance of evidence did not support the applicant's request. Preponderance of evidence is defined as that degree of proof necessary to fully satisfy the board members that there is greater than a 50% probability that the disease was neither incurred during nor...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02670
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02670 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation be changed to medical/service connected disability. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04000-09
04000-09 20 July 2009 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: FORMER glia a NAVAL RECORD REVIEW OF Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that her naval record be corrected to show that she was assigned a reentry code of RE-1. The Board, consisting of Ms. SMM and Messrs WMA and waite reviewed Petitioner's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013728
On 14 May 1986, a medical evaluation board (MEB) convened at Beaumont Army Medical Center, El Paso, TX, and after consideration of clinical records, laboratory findings, and physical examinations, the MEB found the applicant was diagnosed as having the medically-unacceptable condition of acephalgic migraines with transient loss of vision (existed prior to service (EPTS)) and the medically-unacceptable condition of probable conversion reaction aggravating the first diagnosis. On 3 December...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02321
The eye conditions, characterized as “mild traumatic cataract,” “decreased vision,” and “cystoid macular edema” of the left eye, were forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501.No other conditions were submitted by the MEB.The Informal PEBcombined the MEB diagnoses as a single unfitting condition, rated 10% under criteria of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The Board also acknowledges the CI’s information regarding the occupational impediments due to his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019747
The physician's review and analysis of the TSGLI application is summarized below: * the physician thoroughly reviewed the case in the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) which contained more medical notes and documents than the applicant submitted in support of his claim * only one eye examination not prior to the claimed traumatic event was recorded in AHLTA, written on 20 August 2007, documenting his hypermetropia (one eye with significantly worse vision than...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00664
The PEB adjudicated the idiopathic monocular exercise-induced vision/visual field loss condition as unfitting, rated 10% with application of the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). In July 2007, the CI noted transient inferior visual field loss during exertion and sometimes complete loss of vision in his right eye, much more than the left eye. Service Treatment Record
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02316-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 October 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. On 25 August 1959, you were advised that your request for correction of your record to show that you were unfit for duty was denied, and you were...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-01042
The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) adjudicated the visual field deficit right eye condition as unfitting, rated 30%, and placed the CI on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL). At the time the CI was placed on the TDRL, the PEB rated the visual field deficit condition at 30% under a combination VASRD code reflecting that an impairment of visual field (code 6080) was possibly due to TB (6010). In the matter of the right eye visual field condition, the Board unanimously recommends a...