DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DG 20370-5100
TJIR
Docket No: 10723-0609
iz August 2010
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, 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 10 August 2010. The names and votes of the
members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
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 the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.
You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 25 January 1995 at age 20 and
served without disciplinary incident. However, on 27 May 1995,
you were counselled regarding your substandard performance,
specifically, your lack of strength and endurance which
interfered with the performance of your duties and resulted in
your inability to participate in training that included minimal
amounts of physical exertion.
Your record reflects that on 20 Jume 1995 you were referred for a
medical evaluation after experiencing neck pain from a recurrent
fracture and subluxation of the fourth vertebra of your cervical
spine, a condition which resulted from a car accident that
occurred prior to your enlistment. Because your neck injury was
potentially serious and physical activities put you at a high
risk for continued service, you were recommended for an
administrative separation. On 29 June 1995 you were notified of
administrative separation by reason of erroneous enlistment as
evidenced by your inability to meet physical standards due to a
recurrent fracture and subluxation of the fourth vertebra of your
cervical spine, which existed prior to enlistment. Presumably,
you did not object to the separation and waived your right to
submit a separation rebuttal statement. Subsequently, the
discharge authority directed your commanding officer to issue you
an uncharacterized entry level separation by reason of erroneous
entry, and on 11 August 1995, while serving in paygrade E-2, you
were so discharged and were assigned an RE-3P reenlistment code.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and desire to change your entry level separation by.
characterizing your period of service. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief.
The Board concluded that your recurrent physical condition and
failure to complete recruit training were sufficient to support
the uncharacterized entry level separation, which is authorized
by regulatory guidance. Accordingly, your application has been
denied.
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,
W. DEAN DFEIREF
Executive D
\
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130004649
From 30 March through 1 December 2010, she continued to be seen for related medical complications and was diagnosed throughout this period with "stress fracture of the pelvis," "hip joint pain," "cervicalgia [cervical pain]," "joint pain," and "hip and lower back pain." Her narrative summary (NARSUM) prepared in conjunction with the MEB noted: * bone scan of 17 February 2010 showed stress reaction compression, side of neck and left hip * MRI of lumbar vertebrae on 19 November 2010 showed...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01338
The Board considered codes 5290 (limitation; cervical spine) and 5293 (Intervertebral disc syndrome) as more appropriate codes in lite of limited cervical ROMs and radiographically identified bulging C5-C6 disc.The Board deliberated if the CI’s overall disability picture of limited cervical ROM near the time of his separation met 10% (slight) or 20% (moderate) under code 5290, or rose to the 20% rating level under code 5293. Upper Back Pain . BOARD FINDINGS : IAW DoDI 6040.44, provisions...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-00696
The chronic neck and lumbar pain conditions, characterized as “cervical spine pain and lumbar spine pain” and “mild degenerative disk disease (DDD), cervical spine,” were the only conditions forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501.The Informal PEB adjudicated “chronic neck pain,” and “chronic lumbar pain”as unfitting, rated 10% and 10% respectively, with likely application ofthe Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD).The CI made no appeals and was...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00840
The Informal PEB (IPEB) adjudicated limitation of cervical motion, s/p cervical fracture w/c1/2 fusion as unfitting, rating it 20%; with application of the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The ratings for unfitting conditions will be reviewed in all cases. The FPEB rated the CI’s neck condition 10%.
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011 00806
Service treatment records (STRs) on 26 October 2006, note a diagnosis of a “partial non-union of his cervical fracture.”The MEB physical examination (DD Form 2808), on 24 January 2007, diagnosed “cervical fracture” and “post-traumatic arthritis,” noting absence of tenderness to palpation and a normal neurological examination. The different codes did not affect rating as both are based on the same general rating formula for diseases and injuries of the spine.The limitation of cervical spine...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-00366
Neck Condition. He rated the neck pain as 7/10. Knee Condition.
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00156
In the matter of the cervical shrapnel injury and whiplash condition, the Board unanimously recommends that it be rated for two separate unfitting conditions as follows: injury to muscle group XXII coded 5322 and rated 10%; and, injury to muscle group XXIII coded 5323 and rated 10%; both IAW VASRD §4.56 and §4.73. In the matter of the right wrist condition, history of low back pain, headache condition or any other medical conditions eligible for Board consideration; the Board unanimously...
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...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-01020
SUMMARY OF CASE : Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty SPC/E-4 (88M10 / Motor Transport), medically separated for chronic neck pain operative residuals for left C7 radiculopathy with C4/5 and C5/6 degenerative disc disease (DDD). ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Chronic Neck Pain …5099-50030%Status Post Cervical Spine Fusion Secondary to Large Osteophytes and Spine Stenosis of Cervical...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00692
The CI’s enlistment exam, performed 26 months prior to separation, reported one-level cervical fusion (C2-3), with “no sequelae.” ROMs were painless, and were full in all directions except rotation, with a combined ROM of 300⁰ (normal 340⁰). All evidence considered, there is not reasonable doubt in the CI’s favor supporting addition of any upper extremity radiculopathy (peripheral nerve) as an unfitting condition for separation rating. Service Treatment Record