DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No. 06233-10
18 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 7 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 23 October 1984, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) found you
unfit for duty due to arthritis of the left knee and an old bilateral
slipped capital femoral epiphysis, with symptomatic left hip. Your
disability was rated at 10% minus a 0% existed prior to entry factor
for a final rating of 10%. The PEB also found that you suffered from
low back pain and exogenous obesity, neither of which was unfitting
or ratable. You were discharged by reason of physical eisabl lity
on 8 February 1985, with entitlement to disability severance pay.
Effective 9 February 1985, the Veterans Administration (VA) grated
you separate disability ratings of 10% for myofascial back pain and
residuals of a knee injury. The rating for the knee condition was
increased to 20% in 1986. The rating for the myofascial back pain
was increased and decreased several times between 1985 and 1988, when
ultimately increased to 80%, and you were declared unemployable.
The fact that the VA adjusted the rating for your myofascial back
pain several times during the years following your discharge 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
raise or lower disability ratings throughout a veteran's
post-service life time, ratings assigned by the military departments
are fixed as of the date of a the member's separation or permanent
retirement. As you have not demonstrated that you were entitled to
a disability rating«of 30% or higher when you were released from
active duty and discharged in 1985, the Board was unable to recommend
favorable action on your request. 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 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,
Lo Don QA)
W. DEAN PFE
Executive Di teetor
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01584
RATING COMPARISON : Service IPEB – Dated 20040826VA -(~8 Months Post-Separation)ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Left Knee Pain with Degenerative Joint Disease5099-50030%Chondromalacia, Left Knee5099-501410%20050705Neck and Back Pain with Kyphosis and Myofascial Pain and Degenerative Changes5237---%Lumbosacral Spine Associated with Left Knee pain523710%20050705Cervical Spine Associated with Left Knee Pain523710%20050705Other x 4 (Not in Scope)Other x 1 Rating: 0%Combined:...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD 2013 00095
Despite the CI’s remarks of pain during portions of flexion of both knees, the VA C&P noted that examination of his knee on 10 June 2003 “ was grossly unremarkable” the examiner of on to state that the knee examination revealed “ no soft tissue swelling, no point tenderness, or joint effusion and there was no ligamentous instability appreciated.” After due deliberation in consideration of the preponderance of the evidence, the Board concluded there was insufficient cause to recommend a...
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD 2014 01500
He took no medication for his back pain condition. 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 the Board.
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01978
The conditions, characterized as “bilateral retropatellar pain syndrome with subjective ankle pain,” “neck pain,” and“acute chronic low back pain” were forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501.No other conditions were submitted by the MEB.The informal PEBadjudicated the “neck, low back, bilateral knee and ankle pain with subjective symptoms only, x-rays and exam essentially normal, rated (and diagnosed) as myofascial pain syndrome” conditionas unfitting, with likely...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00300
Left Knee Condition . The Board further considered if dual coding of the knee condition was justified, given that there was a history of painful motion and of instability. Other PEB Conditions .
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04458-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 January 2011. As noted above, you were found fit for duty by the PEB, and you accepted that finding, which suggests that you felt that you were fit for duty at that time. 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.
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00088
The Formal PEB (FPEB) adjudicated “Fibromyalgia Associated with Depression and Fatigue” as unfitting and rated 20% with application of DoDI and Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The CI was then medically separated with a 20% disability. At the time of the MEB examination and the VA C&P examination, the CI had constant symptoms of joint pain, depression, fatigue, headache, and sleep disturbance that responded poorly to therapy.
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00218
The condition was determined to be medically unacceptable and the CI was referred to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), found unfit for continued military service, and separated at 20% disability using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Ratings Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Air Force and Department of Defense regulations. Additional 5 degrees loss ROM with repeated motion; 5/5 motor; negative straight leg raise; decrease in sensation to pinprick and light touch on left leg and great...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060615C070421
The formal PEB recommended a combined rating of 20 percent and that the applicant be separated from the service with severance pay. The applicant provided VA documentation, dated 7 July 1988, which shows that service connection was granted and a rating of 40 percent was assigned for a spinal disc condition. The Army must find that a service member is physically unfit to reasonably perform his or her duties and assign an appropriate disability rating before he or she can be medically...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01856
There is insufficient evidence to support a finding of not unfitting for either knee.Therefore, it is reasonably justified that the CI be found unfit for continued military service in her MOS due to her left and right anterior knee pain with patellar crepitus and patellar apprehension condition. However, there is no evidence of any further examination in the record. Providing a correction to the individual’s separation document showing that the individual was separated by reason of...