DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No. 11122-09
8 April 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 8 April 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, available naval records and applicable
statutes, regulations and policies.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was
4‘nsufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.
You enlisted in the Navy Reserve on 1 November 1960, and were
ordered to active duty on or about 12 May 1964 for a period of
two years. You were evaluated by a board of medical survey (BMS)
on 16 June 1964 because of your complaint of foot pain after
walking about one quarter mile. Physical examination and imaging
studies revealed bilateral pes planus (flat feet), painful
bilateral hallux valgus (bunions), hammertoes, claw toes and
multiple surgical scars. The BMS determined that you were unfit
for duty by reason of bilateral hallux valgus, which was not
incurred in or aggravated by your brief period of active duty
service, and recommended that you be discharged without
entitlement to disability benefits. You were honorably
discharged on 15 July 1964, in accordance with the approved
findings and recommendation of the BMS. On 10 February 1975,
the Veterans Administration denied your request for service
connection for hallux valgus, pes planus and claw toes based on
its independent determination that those conditions were neither
incurred in nor aggravated by your active service.
The available records indicate that your pre-existing foot.
condition became symptomatic shortly after you entered on active
duty. There is no indication in those records that you
sustained significant trauma to your feet while on active duty,
or that your pre-existing condition increased in severity beyond
natural progression during that time. In the absence of
evidence which demonstrates that you were unfit for duty by
reason of physical disability that was incurred in or aggravated
by your service, the Board 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 ef 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,
La Qa Ql
W. DEAN PF
Executive ector
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-00868
SEPARATION DATE: 20061020 The bilateral foot conditions, characterized by the MEB as “hallux valgus” and “bilateral pes planus,” were forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501. There were no other MH treatment notes for review.
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00984
The right hallux valgus/limitus condition (bunion surgery and post-surgical result) was the principle cause of the right foot pain surgery and chronic right foot pain and was considered in rating the CI’s primary unfitting foot pain condition. The VA exam summary for pes planus is discussed above and all symptoms from the pes planus condition were considered in the rating of the foot pain condition. In the matter of the contended pes planus and hallux valgus conditions, the Board...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 00620
The PEB adjudicated the bilateral foot pain and bilateral hallux valgusconditionsas a single unfitting condition, rated 10%, with application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD).The remaining conditions were determined to be not unfitting.The CI made no appeals and was medically separated. The VA rated the bilateral foot condition separately as hallux valgus, coded5280, at 10% for each foot for a combined rating of 20%. BOARD FINDINGS : IAW DoDI 6040.44,...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02293
Foot Condition . It documented hallux valgus and pes cavus (claw foot, congenital) deformitiesof both feet and full ROM of the right ankle and hindfoot.That note itself did not reference trauma, but a follow-up orthopedic entry provided a history of injury to the right foot only. The podiatry addendum 8 months prior to separation documented pain rated “6/10 progressing to 9/10 on his right foot;” with no rest pain of the left foot, but 5/10 pain with activity.
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-01176
The Informal PEB (IPEB) adjudicated the chronic right foot pain due to Morton’s neuroma condition as unfitting, rated 10%, with application of the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). Although there were examination findings of hallux valgus and hammer toes (single toes) there were no symptoms or impairment attributed to these abnormalities that would warrant rating under VASRD codes 5280 or 5282, and, if rated using these codes, would not attain a minimum...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050006270C070206
The Rating Decision noted the applicant had been "assigned a 10 percent evaluation from the Army at discharge for this condition." This will apply whether the particular condition was noted at the time of entrance into active service or is determined upon the evidence of record or accepted medical principles to have existed at that time. The applicant contended the criteria for assignment of a 10 percent rating was not met by the findings on his active duty entrance examination, presumably...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01894
CI CONTENTION : “Medical Board combined Right and Left conditions as one and left off pes planus from diagnostic evaluation. All members agreed, however, that separate ratings (unilateral or bilateral) under separate codes was not compliant with VASRD §4.14 (avoidance of pyramiding), which specifies that “the evaluation of the same manifestation under different diagnoses are to be avoided.” Specifically a separate compensable rating for pes planus, as contended by the CI and conferred by...
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00776
In the matter of the bilateral cataracts, trigeminal neuralgia, bilateral knee pain, pes planus, tinnitus or any other medical conditions eligible for Board consideration; the Board unanimously agrees that it cannot recommend any findings of unfit for additional rating at separation. RECOMMENDATION : The Board recommends that the CI’s prior determination be modified as follows, effective as of the date of his prior medical separation: Subj: PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW (PDBR)...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-01065
The Board evaluates DVA evidence proximal to separation in arriving at its recommendations, but its authority resides in evaluating the fairness of DES fitness decisions and rating determinations for disability at the time of separation. Back Condition. Under the authority of Title 10, United States Code, section 1554(a), I approve the enclosed recommendation of the Department of Defense Physical Disability Board of Review (DoD PDBR) pertaining to the individual named in the subject line...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01755
Ratings for unfitting conditions will be reviewed in all cases.The rated, unfitting condition of bilateral foot painas well as Raynaud’sphenomenon, low back pain (LBP), left knee retropatellar pain syndrome (RPPS), hemorrhoids, cervical dysplasia, pelvic pain, and bilateral wrist pain conditions as requested for consideration meet the criteria prescribed in DoDI 6040.44 for Board purview.Any conditions or contention not requested in this application, or otherwise outside the Board’s defined...