DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~51OO

JRE
Docket No. 00606-07
25 February 2008

This is a reference to your application for correction of 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 14 February 2008. 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.

The Board found that you were released from active duty on 13 June 1980 and transferred to the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) with a 50 percent rating for fibromatosis, knuckle pads, proximal interphalangeal joint areas, both hands, and cold intolerance, both hands, etiology undetermined. In a rating decision dated 12 January 1982, the Veterans Administration (VA) classified your disability as Raynaud’s phenomenon, and assigned a disability rating of 20 percent. The Central Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) reevaluated your case on 31. October 1985, and determined that your condition was ratable at 20 percent disabling. You rejected that finding, and demanded a formal hearing. On 15 January 1986, the Great Lakes hearing panel of the PEB determined that your condition was 50 percent disabling, and recommended that you be permanently retired by reason of physical disability. On 7 February 1986, the Physical Review Council (PRC)
reviewed the findings of the PEB and made substitute findings that your disability was ratable at 20 percent. The PRC found that you condition had stabilized, and that not all fingers of either hand were involved. The PRC noted that you did not take any medications for your condition, and that the neuro-ciculatory status in your hands was grossly normal, with normal peripheral pulses. Range of motion was essentially normal, although somewhat reduced in some of the finger joints when swelling occurred. The findings of the PRC were approved by the Secretary of the Navy on 15 May 1986, and you were discharged with entitlement to disability severance pay on 20 June 1986. Your VA disability rating was terminated on 1 November 1986 due to your failure to report for a VA examination.

On 30 March 1992, the VA awarded you a 0% rating for Raynaud’s phenomenon, based on the results of an examination conducted on 5 November 1991. On 6 March 1998, the VA denied your request for service connection for Dupuytren’s contracture, and affirmed the 0 percent rating for Raynaud’s phenomenon. The rating decision indicates that you had been active as a carpenter until developing progressive contractures of the third to fifth fingers of both hands and being diagnosed with Dupuytren’s contractures. On 16 December 2003, the VA awarded you a combined rating of 80 percent effective 19 May 2003 for scierodactyly with fibrosis of the flexor tendons, right hand, and left index, middle, ring and little fingers. The ratings were based on the limitation of motion in the involved fingers caused by the scierodactyly with fibrosis.

The Board concluded that irrespective of the diagnostic label applied to your disability in 1986, the available evidence does not demonstrate that you should have been permanently retired by reason of physical disability at that time. There is no persuasive evidence that you suffered from Dupuytren’s contracture prior to your discharge. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that your condition should have been classified as Dupuytren’s contracture in 1986, you would not have been entitled to a rating in excess of 20 percent, as that condition is rated based on limitation of motion of the affected joints. As noted above, you had essentially normal range of motion in your fingers when you underwent your final TDRL examination. In
addition, you continued to work as a carpenter for several years after you were discharged, which suggests that there was minimal impairment of your occupational adaptability. The increase in severity of your condition that has occurred in recent years is a matter within the purview of the PEB, rather than the Department of the Navy, as VA ratings may be adjusted throughout a veteran’s lifetime, while those assigned by the military departments are fixed as of the date of separation.

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,

	W. DEAN PFEIFFER
	Executive Director