DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX JRE
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 Docket No. 04772-10
27 April 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 21 April
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 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.
On 29 March 2006, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) made
preliminary findings that you were unfit for duty by reason of
physical disability due to neurocardiogenic syncope, which it rated
at 10% disabling under Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) code
7099-8299-8210. On 1 April 2006, you accepted those findings and
waived your right to demand a hearing before the PEB. You were
discharged with entitlement to severance pay on 4 May 2006. The VA
rated your condition at 0% effective 5 May 2006, and 20% effective
16 February 2007. The effective date of the latter rating was later
changed to 5 May 2006. The VA increased the rating to 30% effective
1 August 2008.
The Board did not accept your unsubstantiated contention to the
effect that you should have received a disability rating of 30% or
higher for syncope, or that you were otherwise entitled to retirement
by reason of physical disability, vice separation with entitlement
to severance pay. The fact that the VA increased the rating for
the syncope to 30% several years after you were discharged from the
Navy was not considered probative of the existence of error or
injustice in your record. In this regard, the Board noted that
although the VA may amend a veteran’s disability ratings at any time
to account for changes in rated conditions that may occur after a
veteran's release from active duty, disability ratings assigned by
the military departments are fixed as of the date of separation.
In view of the foregoing, 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,
W. DEAN PFEI
Executive Dir
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-00399
The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. RECOMMENDATION : The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no re-characterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination. I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06233-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 April 2011. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140013223
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The evidence of record confirms that on 22 February 2007 an MEB found the applicant's conditions of migraine headaches and recurrent presyncopal/syncopal episodes were medically unacceptable and did not meet retention standards. On 26 March 2007, the PEB found her unfit due to migraine headaches and near syncopal episodes consisting of lightheadedness and darkening visions that prevented her from...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00277
ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Chronic Pericarditis with Exercise Limiting Chest Pain Secondary to Acute Viral Myopericarditis Chronic Serous Pericarditis70020%Post-viral Cardiomyopathy w/Recurring Atrial Fibrillation7099-702010%*20050802History of Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation Medically ControlledNot Unfitting↓No Additional MEB/PEB Entries↓PTSD941130%**STR0% x 0/Not Service Connected x 2 Combined: 0%Combined: 40%*** *Post-viral Cardiomyopathy w/Recurring Atrial Fibrillation...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05180-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 June 2011. Your receipt of disability ratings from the VA for conditions not rated by the Department of 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 for military duty vis-a-vis those conditions. Consequently, when applying for a correction...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02514
Although she had normal studies, the CI continued to report syncopal episodes and was referred to the heart clinic for possible electrophysiology studies. The EKG recorded normal sinus rhythm and no signs of atrial tachycardia or an accessory pathway (successful ablation).The VA Compensation and Pensionexamdated 18 November 2005, 3 months after separation, recorded the CI’s syncopal history, diagnoses, and treatment, and indicated the condition was well controlled with medication. The...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03527-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 July 2009. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that your disability was ratable at or above 30% disabling as of 12 May 2006, 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09521-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 July 2009. Your receipt of disability ratings from the VA for numerous conditions that were not evaluated or rated by the PEB 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 for military duty, and you have not demonstrated that any of those conditions...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04787-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 February 2011. As there is no indication in the available records that you were unfit for duty on 30 July 2009 due to the effects of any of the additional conditions rated by the VA, the Board was tunable to recommend favorable action in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00093
CI CONTENTION : “My rating from the Air Force combined two disabilities into one, where the VA found it to be two separate conditions. In the matter of the neurocardiogenic syncope associated with depressive disorder condition, the Board unanimously recommends that it be rated for two separate conditions as follows: neurocardiogenic syncope as unfitting, rated 10% by a vote of 2:1 and coded 8299-8210 IAW VASRD §4.124a; and depressive disorder unanimously as not unfitting. The pertinent...