DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 5, COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2496
TJIR ‘
Docket No: 132-14
390 March 2015
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, United ~
States Code, Section 1552,
Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the
Board found it ‘in the interest of justice to waive the statute of
limitations and consider your application on its merits. A
three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17
March 2015. The names and votes of the members of the panel
will be furnished upon request. 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.
You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 2 April 2000, and served
without disciplinary incident until 1 August 2000, when you
received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for a five day period of
unauthorized absence (UA). Shortly thereafter, you were referred
for a medical evaluation due to your complaint of back pain, at
which time you were advised to comply with a Sports Medicine
Treatment Program by attending medical appointments, following
light duty recommendations, and obeying medical orders. However,
on 9 August 2000, you were counselled due to your failure to
‘comply with the foregoing program. At that time you also waived
your right to have your case reviewed by a Physical Evaluation
Board (PEB).
Subsequently, you were administratively processed for separation
by reason of a physical condition not a disability, specifically,
chronic lower back pain, the severity of which significantly
impaired your ability to function effectively. As such, you were
unable to complete required entry level training due to your lack
' of physical ability to continue serving on active duty. At that
time you were not recommended for retention or reenlistment.
After waiving your procedural rights, the discharge authority
directed an uncharacterized entry level separation by reason of
condition not a physical/mental disability that interfered with
performance of duties. On 13 October 2000, while serving in
paygrade E-1, you were so separated and assigned an RE-4
reenlistment code.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your! desire to change your reenlistment code so that you may
reenlistment. It also considered your explanation regarding the
circumstances surrounding your separation. Nevertheless, the
Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
relief in your case because of the seriousness of your chronic
lower back pain and failure to successfully comply with a medical
treatment program, The Board also noted your decision to waive
review of your case by a PEB. Accordingly, your application has
been denied.
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
within one year from the date of the Board’s decision. 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,
ROBERT J. O’NEILL
Executive Director
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01821
After the disc decompression procedure performed 8 months prior to separation, the CI did experience relief from the radicular symptoms while his back pain persisted. BOARD FINDINGS : IAW DoDI 6040.44, provisions of DoD or Military Department regulations or guidelines relied upon by the PEB will not be considered by the Board to the extent they were inconsistent with the VASRD in effect at the time of the adjudication.As discussed above, PEB reliance on DoDI 1332.39 for rating chronic back...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019629
The applicant requests, in effect: * consideration by a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) for award of a disability rating of 40 percent (%) or more for the following medical conditions: * head trauma (traumatic brain injury (TBI)) * left and right bilateral wrist pain due to symptomatic mid-carpal instability with a minimal rating of 10% * lower back pain with a minimal rating of 20% * a medical disability retirement with a rating of at least 40% * a personal appearance before the Board 2. ...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00078
The CI was evaluated for reported symptoms of paresthesias of the right upper extremity, but cervical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) on 9 January 2001 did not show spinal canal stenosis or nerve encroachment and nerve conduction studies on 13 April 2001 did not show any evidence of radicuolpathy.The CI was involved in another MVA on 26 June 2001 and was seen in the ER for “right shoulder, neck and low back pain;” the exam noted only right trapezius muscle tenderness, no spinal tenderness,...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00821
In addition to that diagnosis, he also listed diagnoses of chronic pain syndrome, bilateral foot pain, bilateral shoulder pain with right shoulder arthrosis, low back pain status-post surgery and chronic bilateral knee pain with retropatellar pain syndrome.At the MEB exam on 14 May 2001(7 months prior to entry on TDRL),the CI reported that he could not perform his duties because of pain in his upper back, lower back, shoulders, hips, legs, knees, feet, hands and neck.At the VA Compensation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140020001
She stated that "she had come into the service with the condition." Thus, if evidence establishes that the Soldier adequately performed the normal duties of his or her office, grade, rank or rating until the time of referral for physical evaluation, the Soldier might be considered fit for duty, even though medical evidence indicates the Soldier's physical ability to perform such duties may be questionable. In regards to her knee pain, the evidence of record shows that the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9510220C070209
After he stopped attending drills, he was discharged for medical disqualification upon the advice of the ARNG State Surgeon even though he had been found physically fit to perform his duties by a physical evaluation board (PEB). This paragraph requires a member who is determined to be medically disqualified for retention to be discharged or transferred to the USAR Control Group (Retired) (regardless of years of service), unless the member requests, and is granted, a waiver of the medical...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02800
Almost 2 months prior to TDRL removal, the CI underwent an orthopedic evaluation for her upper back pain as noted in the neck pain section above. After due deliberation in consideration of the preponderance of the evidence, the Board concluded that there was insufficient evidence to recommend that an unfitting MH condition was present at the time of TDRL placement and so no additional disability rating is recommended. RECOMMENDATION : The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050007386C070206
Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability. Army Regulation 635-40 states that, once a Soldier is determined to be physically unfit for further military service, percentage ratings are applied to the unfitting conditions. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to show his back condition rendered him unfit to perform his duties at the time of his separation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001053852C070420
The USAPDA stated that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of unfit, and that the applicant had experienced back pain and sufficiently performed duties since 1996 with no significant worsening of his pain. It stated that his medical condition had been present since 1996, that his condition had been considered mild with little change, and that he had continued to perform his duties. He stated that his condition was not mild, and that his physical activities have been...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 00378
The CI was then medically separated the CI with a 10% disability rating. By precedent, the Board threshold for a “moderate” peripheral nerve rating requires some functionally significant motor and/or sensory impairment.After due deliberation, considering all of the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt), the Board concluded that the chronic low back pain w/ radicular pain left leg condition should be rated for two separate conditions; an unfitting low back pain condition...