DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX JRE
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 Docket No. 07762-10
11 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 31 March
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 polleves.
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 evaluated you on 3 January 1989 and
made preliminary findings that you were unfit for duty by reason of
physical disability due to service aggravated flat feet which were
ratable at 10% disabling. You accepted those findings on 10 January
1989, and were honorably discharged from the Marine Corps on 17
February 1989 Following your discharge, the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) awarded you a 10% rating for the flat feet condition,
and denied your request for service connection fora bilateral knee
condition. You successfully appealed the determination concerning
the knee condition, and were awarded a 10% rating for each knee, For
a combined rating of 30% effective from 18 February 1989. Over the
course of the next eighteen years, the VA increased the rating for
your flat feet and added ratings for several additional conditions
which it determined were secondary to other rated conditions. Your
combined disability rating was increased to 50% in 2001, 60% in 2004,
and 80% in 2007.
Your receipt of disability ratings from the VA for conditions other
than flat feet is not probative of the existence of error or injustice
jin your naval record. In this regard, the Board found that although
the VA may add, increase and/or decrease disability ratings
throughout a veteran’s post service lifetime, the ratings assigned
by the military departments are fixed as of the date of the service
member’s separation or permanent retirement from the service. In
addition, it noted that although the VA rates all of a veteran’s
conditiong that were incurred in, aggravated by, traceable to a
period ofjmilitary service, without regard to the issue of fitness
for military duty, the military departments rate only those
conditions that render a service member unfit for military duty, or
contribute to an unfitting condition and warrant a separate rating.
As you have not demonstrated the flat feet condition was ratable at
or above 30% disabling as of 17 February 1989, or that you suffered
from any other unfitting conditions at that time, 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,
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01841
No other conditions were submitted by the MEB.The Informal PEB (IPEB) adjudicated the right anterior knee pain as unfitting, rated 0%IAW the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD); the pes planus and secondary plantar fasciitis was determined to have existed prior to service, were not permanently service aggravated and therefore not compensable. Post-Separation) ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Right Anterior Knee Pain5099-50030%Residuals, Right Knee Injury 526010%20060119Pes...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00707
The VA considered the CI’s foot conditions (Bilateral Plantar Fasciitis with Pes Planus) as combining for foot disability IAW VASRD §4.71a-29 using rating Code 5276 Flatfoot; acquired and awarded the CI with a rating of 30% (severe, bilateral). The Board considered the overlap of foot symptoms from the two inter-related conditions (Plantar Fasciitis and Pes Planus) and rating as a single bilateral code of 5276 at 30% (severe, bilateral) as the VA rated the combined foot conditions. After...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09791-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 September 2008. In addition, the VA may amend ratings at any time it determines there has been a significant improvement or worsening of a rated condition, and it may add ratings for new conditions that are considered secondary to a rated condition, as in your case, where you received ratings for bilateral hip conditions more than eight years after you were...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00720
The PEB adjudicated the bilateral foot pain condition as unfitting, rated 20% (combined 10% left and 10% right) with application of the Veteran’s Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). Bilateral Foot Pain Condition . The VA coded the feet condition as flat feet and synovitis (5276-5020) rating each foot at 10%.
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00287
The PEB combined back pain, right knee pain and left knee pain as a single unfitting condition, coded analogously to 5003 and rated 0%. It was concluded, however, that the normal ROM documented by the MEB and the minimally impaired ROMs (without painful motion) documented on the post-separation VA C&P examination would not support application of that code; and, furthermore, would not justify a compensable rating if it were applied. In the matter of the back and left knee condition, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 03548-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 1 May 2001. 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...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00076
The CI had excessive daytime sleepiness and was diagnosed with OSA requiring CPAP as noted above. Right Knee Condition . The 5 months after separation VA exam, demonstrated ‘tender patella tendon, tender patella rub, prominent tibial tubercle; no instability.’ History on both exams noted increased pain with activity, walking and standing, but did not indicate painful motion, or pain-limited motion of the knee.
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02196
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. ROM limited by pain Pain with repetition. With a normal gait, non-tender MEB examination (but tender VA examination), normal X-rays, and lack of abnormal wear from weight bearing, the Board found no route to a rating...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01061
The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of theVeterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. The VA C&P examination summarized the CI’s prior right knee injury noting no specific or additional complaints. The condition was not listed on the permanent profile nor implicated in the commander’s statement.After...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00761
The VA separately coded and rated the cervical and thoracolumbar spine conditions at 20% each based on the VA exam which indicated much decreased ROMs of the spine. The MEB and PEB coded the CI’s chest pain as due to the CI’s spine condition. ); and an unfitting chest pain condition, coded 5399-5321 and rated 10% (IAW VASRD §4.73).