DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
					2 NAVY ANNEX
						WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 
										              JRE
Docket No. 02146-04
13 August 2004

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 29 July 2004. 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 reconsider of your application, together with all material submitted in support t thereof, your naval record arid 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 a board of medical survey (BMS) which convened on 7 November 1966 gave you diagnoses of chondromalacia right patella, and aortic stenosis, existed prior to enlistment, not service aggravated. The latter diagnosis was based on information disclosed by you and the contents of a letter from a physician dated 24 October 1966. The physician stated that he first saw you on 15 February 1956. Prior to that time, you had been followed in a rheumatic fever clinic at a state medical college. He related that you had a rather severe strep throat and pneumonia (presumably at 14 months of age) and several years later, a heart murmur was noted. He stated that the results of fluoroscopic examination, electrocardiogram and heart
catheterization performed on 7 March 1956 were normal. Left heart catheterization was not performed. The physician stated that even though no specific diagnosis was made, he suspected that “this could represent a congenital bicuspic [sic] valve.” The EMS recommended that you be referred to the physical evaluation board (PEE) for determination of your fitness for duty. You were advised of the findings and recommendation of the EMS, and of your right to submit a statement in rebuttal thereto. There is no indication in the available records that you submitted any matters in rebuttal to the report of the EMS. You were discharged by reason of physical disability on 9 January 1967, with a 10% rating for the aforementioned knee condition.

The Board was not persuaded that the determination of the EMS concerning the origin of the aortic stenosis is erroneous. It noted that the EMS based it determination on the application of accepted medical principles to the available medical evidence. The Board rejected the recent determination of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that the heart condition was incurred during your service in the Navy, as that determination is not well reasoned or substantiated by the evidence of record. In this regard, the Board noted that the VA concluded, essentially, that as the specific condition of aortic stenosis was not diagnosed prior to your enlistment, and as you passed your preenlistment physical examination, that condition must have been incurred during your service in the Navy. The VA discounted and/or ignored significant evidence when making that determination, to include your pre-service history of rheumatic fever and a heart murmur, which apparently persisted into your apparently persisted into your adolescence, and the statements of several private physicians who concluded that your heart condition was either congenital in nature, or resulted from the rheumatic fever you suffered as an infant. In addition, the Board noted that as the effects of the heart condition did not result in any appreciable impairment of your health or social or industrial adaptability at the time of your discharge, you would not have been entitled to a disability rating in excess of 0% for that condition even if it the PEE had considered it to be ratable. Finally, although the VA may raise or lower disability ratings throughout a veteran’s lifetime, ratings assigned by the military departments are fixed as of the date of separation or permanent retirement.

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,