DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No. 05589-09
8 January 2010
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 7 January 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
o£ 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 underwent a pre-separation physical
examination on 5 June 1995 and disclosed a history of numerous
medical conditions and complaints, each of which was evaluated
and found not disqualifying by the physician who conducted the
examination and found you fit for separation. You were
honorably discharged on 1 July 1995, in grade E-3, by reason of
non-retention on active-duty, having completed six years of
service. Effective 2 July 1995, the Department of Veterans
Affairs {VA) awarded you a disability rating of 20% for a lower
back condition, and added a rating of 20% for diabetes mellitus,
effective 28 July 1995, the date on which that condition was
diagnosed.
The Board concluded that your receipt of disability ratings from
the VA shortly after you were discharged from the Navy 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 to reasonably perform military duty on
the date of your separation. As you have not demonstrated that
you were unfit for duty on 1 July 1995 because of the back
condition and/or the diabetes mellitus, and that you should have
received a combined disability rating from the Department of the
Navy of 30% or higher, 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
panei 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,
\wQaag
W. DEAN PFE
Executive Di r
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06977-01
” The Board noted that it is the function of an MEB, which is composed entirely of physicians, to report on the state of health of the service member who is the subject of the MEB, and to recommend referral of the member to the PEB in appropriate cases. In reference to the question of why Petitioner's cardiac and pulmonary conditions found not unfitting at the time of his initial PEB adjudication and placement on the TDRL, reference Petitioner's original 14 February 1992 Medical Evaluation...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12607-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 July 2010. As you have not demonstrated that you were unfit for duty on 20 February 2008, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material errer or injuctice.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015022
The applicant provides a VA Rating Decision rendered by the VA Regional Office located in Seatac, WA, dated 4 September 2013, which shows he had the following conditions that were subject to compensation at the time at a combined disability rating of 40%: a. service-connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, 10% effective date 1 March 2013; b. service-connection for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo, 10% effective date 1 March 2013; c. service-connection for bilateral tinnitus, 10%...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00133
The CI had additional orthopedic conditions (back, right knee, and right ankle) which were forwarded by the MEB as medically acceptable. The NARSUM, however, specifically states ‘must have access to diabetic diet’ and this requirement is documented in medical profiles and diabetic clinic notes. Other Conditions .
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05069-02
As you have not demonstrated that your sleep apnea condition was ratable above 10%, or that any of your other conditions rendered you unfit for duty, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action. THE HEARING WAS RECONVENED ON 3 SEPTEMBER 1996 WITH COUNSEL FOR THE MEMBER BUT WITHOUT THE MEMBER BEING PRESENT, AT WHICH TIME ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS SUBMITTED, INCLUDING THE NEUROPSYCHOLOGIC EVALUATION REPORT AND A SHOWERS EVIDENCE LETTER FROM THE MEMBER’S FORMER COMMANDING OFFICER. ...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-01031
Although the 40% rating was not supported by the evidence of the service treatment record, the PEB placed the CI on the TDRL with a rating of 40%. The PEB concluded the diabetes unfitting for continued military service and adjudicated a permanent 20% rating. Both at the time of placement on the TDRL and at the time of permanent disability disposition and removal from the TDRL, the CI’s diabetes was treated with diet and medication (an oral medication and insulin) meeting the VASRD criteria...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-01116
The CI was then medically separated with a 20% disability rating. The two interim TDRL exams and PEB decisions were not in evidence for review and therefore the Board could not discern the reasoning for continuance on TDRL, but agreed if the recommendation was to remain on TDRL, the % criteria that allowed this was the 40% rating. In addition, the VA, in spite of the 13 February 2008 exam, did not rate diabetic neuropathy until a rating decision in 2010 with an effective date of 30...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00083
The VA rated also rated the condition 20% based on the VA compensation and pension (C&P) examination two weeks before separation. There was no evidence in the service medical treatment records that indicated medical restriction of normal activities including athletic was required. The Board determined therefore that none of the stated conditions were subject to Service disability rating.
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-02130
She was issued a P4 profile and referred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The CI non-concurred but later concurred with the PEB findings and recommendations and was medically separated. Post-Separation) ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Diabetes Mellitus Type I 791320%Diabetes Mellitus791320%20031212Diabetic Retinopathy w/ Lattice Degeneration600710%20031221Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy, LLE8599-852010%20031212Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy, RLE8599-852010%20031212Other x 0...
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00619
A December 11, 2007 Wilford Hall Medical Center cardiology follow up appointment records the CI was asymptomatic and that “he has been physically active with no limitations.” The MEB NARSUM on January 9, 2008 records the CI was feeling well and had no complaint of chest pain, shortness of breath, or light headedness and had no duty restrictions. The Board therefore has no reasonable basis for recommending any additional unfitting conditions for separation rating. I have carefully reviewed...