DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No. 08685-10
9 June 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 2 June
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.
You served on active duty in the Marine Corps from 3 February 1990
to 15 October 1995, when you were discharged by reason of physical
disability. You received a combined disability rating of 10% for
residuals of a destructive mass/tumor in the left external auditory
canal and conductive hearing loss, left ear. On 26 March 1996, the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded you a combined rating
of 0% for three orthopedic conditions and residuals of a laceration
of the left forearm; therafter, the VA added 0% ratings for hearing
loss, left ear, with history of tumor, and tinnitus.
In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that you are entitled
to combined disability rating of 30% or higher for the ear canal tumor
and hearing loss, or that you suffered from any other conditions that
rendered your unfit for duty at the time of your discharge, the Board
was unable to recommend favorable action on your request. It noted
that your receipt of VA disability ratings for multiple conditions
that were not rated by the Department of the Navy is not probative
of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record because
the military departments rate only those conditions that render a
service member unfit for duty, or contribute to an unfitting
condition and warrant a separate disability rating, whereas the VA
must rate all conditions incurred in or aggravated by military
_gervice. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names
and votes of tkhe,members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
+t)
Te is eee 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,
Weed )
DEAN PF
Executive 1 or
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00544
The CI was referred to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), determined unfit for Deafness in Left Ear with Tinnitus, and separated at 10% disability using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Ratings Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Air Force and Department of Defense regulations. At this time he no longer had any vertigo, incoordination, or headaches but continued to have tinnitus, absolute hearing loss in the left ear, and left facial nerve palsy. The 2008 PEB determined the CI was unfit...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11019-06
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.The Board found that you were discharged from the Navy by reason of physical disability on 6...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07396-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application OR 22 August 2002. You also received multiple ratings of 0% and one of 10 % for The Board was not persuaded that your mood disorder was ratable above 30% disabling at the time of your permanent retirement. 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...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00388
He was issued a permanent P3/H3 profile and underwent a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The Informal PEB (IPEB) adjudicated the chronic left mastoiditis, vertigo (following erosion of horizontal canal), and hearing loss conditions as unfitting, rated 10%, 10% and 0% respectively, with application of the Veterans’ Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). In the matter of the vertigo and the hearing loss conditions, the Board unanimously recommends that the conditions be...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00558
The CI was referred to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), determined unfit for the one condition, and separated at 0% disability using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Ratings Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Air Force and Department of Defense regulations. The hearing profile is required to be 1 and his was 3 (The L2 profile, presumably for his femur fracture met the minimum standard of 3 for his AFSC.). The Board considered the condition of Vertigo and unanimously determined that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04463-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 October 2002. 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 | CY2011 | PD2011-00711
In the matter of the tinnitus condition, the Board unanimously recommends that it be added as an additionally unfitting condition for separation rating, coded 6260 and rated 10% IAW VASRD §4.87. I concur with that finding, accept their recommendation and direct that your records be corrected as set forth in the attached copy of a Memorandum for the Chief of Staff, United States Air Force. The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating XXXXXXXXXX, be corrected to...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00556
Six other conditions, as identified in the rating chart below, were forwarded on the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) submission as medically acceptable conditions. The PEB adjudicated the bilateral SNHL as unfitting, rated 0% with application of the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The service ratings for unfitting conditions will be reviewed in all cases.
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00089
The examiner’s summary of ROMs in the chart above was from the physical exam section of the C&P exam and was slightly different than the summary area ROMs (no ratable difference), which stated, “Loss of flexion of 22 degrees, extension of 10 degrees, left lateral flexion of 15 degrees and right lateral flexion of 10 degrees.” Although remote from separation, the Board noted that four subsequent VA exams at 38, 55, 77, and 87 months post-separation showed significantly greater ROM deficits...
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00469
The MEB examination was most consistent with the general description for a §4.130 rating of 30%, demonstrating “occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks.” All six descriptors at the 30% level are manifested in the MEB examination and the VA C&P examination 2.5 months after separation. Four of nine descriptors at the 50% level are noted in the MEB examination: constricted expressions,...