DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
e 2 NAVY ANNEX
Ve WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 spp
Docket No. 03582-10
11 February 2011
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 3
February 2011. 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 gubmitted 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.
You served on active duty in the Navy from 27 April 2009 to 2 February
2010, when you received a general discharge by reason of misconduct
due to the commission of a serious offense. The report of a
compensation and pension examination conducted by the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) on 18 May 2010 indicates that you had a
longstanding pre-service history of depression and abuse of
cannabis, cocaine, heroin and “all [the drugs] you can name”. On ll
June 2020 the Department of Veterans Affairs granted your request
for service connection for mild bronchial asthma and hearing loss,
and denied requests for “pre-hypertension", alcohol withdrawal
seizures, alcoholism, major depression with anxiety features, and
insomnia.
The Board was not persuaded that you were unfit for duty by reason
of physical disability due to mild asthma or any other condition that
was incurred in or aggravated by your brief period of service in the
Navy. It found that you would not have been entitled to disability
separation or retirement even if you had been unfit for duty by reason
of physical disability, because your discharge by reason of
misconduct would have taken precedence over, and most likely
precluded, disability evaluation processing. In addition, given
the fraudulent nature of your enlistment, which you procured by
concealing your disqualifying history of poly-drug abuse and
s¥mptoms of a mental disorder, the Board concluded that it would not
be in the interest 6f justice to grant your request under any
circumstances. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The
names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon
request.
é
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 PF R
Executive Direttor
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00593
The Informal PEB (IPEB) found BPD unfitting and assigned a rating of 10%. CI’s CONTENTION : “The findings of the Physical Evaluation Board were that the unfitting condition was “bipolar disorder VA diagnostic code 9432” and it was rated at 10%. As noted above, the Navy PEB found the BPD unfitting, and assigned a disability rating of 10%.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04334-01
Documentary material considered by the Board your 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 Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) made preliminary findings that you were unfit for duty because of post traumatic stress disorder and major depression, which existed prior to your enlistment, and were not aggravated by your service. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02771-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 May 2010. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden -is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01438
SEPARATION DATE: 20020121 The Board’s role is thus confined to the review of medical records and all evidence at hand to assess the fairness of PEB rating determinations, compared to VASRD standards, based on ratable severity at the time of separation; and, to review those fitness determinations within its scope (as elaborated above) consistent with performance-based criteria in evidence at separation.The Board acknowledges the CI’s information regarding the significant impairment with...
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-02239
The initial VA C&P examination (within the DES Pilot process occurred)dated3 June 2009, during the examination, the examiner noted that the CI was not currently in psychiatric treatment and during brief treatment for his MH symptoms in 2008 he was not hospitalized, was not suicidal and had not required any psychotropic medications.At the VA C&P examination the CI denied being anxious or depressedand the examiner noted the CI was “without signs of ongoing anxiety, depression, or psychosis at...
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00945
The VA rated this examination at 50% IAW §4.130 criteria. The CI’s GAF was considered mild (GAF=65) and there was no improvement in his symptoms since his initial TDRL entry examinations. RECOMMENDATION : The Board recommends that the CI’s prior separation be recharacterized to reflect that, rather than discharged with severance pay, the CI was placed on the TDRL at 70% (PTSD at 50% IAW §4.129 and DoD direction) and then permanently retired by reason of physical disability with a final 50%...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00579
At the MEB examination on 24 June 2003, 10 months prior to separation, the examiner noted a history of psychotic disorder without further elaboration. The PEB coded the condition 9210 for a non specified psychotic disorder and rated it at 10% for mild impairment treated with medication. The Board noted that the CI was responding well to medications at the time of discharge from the hospital, 9 months prior to separation.
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-03148
Both the Air Force PEB and the VA coded the pulmonary condition 6602 (Asthma). The PEB rated it 10%, and the VA rated it 30%. Eight months later, she was using the anti-inflammatory corticosteroid Motametasone.Following a thorough review of the evidence in the treatment record, the Board concluded that it was more likely than not that the CI was using inhalational anti-inflammatory medication at the time of separation from service.
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01707
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEWNAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX CASE: PD-2013-01707BRANCH OF SERVICE: AIR FORCEBOARD DATE: 20141107 The MEB physical exam noted a normal respiratory rate at rest and a normal lung examination.The MEB narrative summary (NARSUM)(5 months prior to separation) noted a diagnosis of “mild persistent asthma, with exercise induced component.” The MEB dated 5 August 2005 (performed 4 months prior to separation) recommended a return to duty. The IPEB (7...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01148-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 May 2010. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...