DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

JRE
Docket No: 5906-97
21 May 1999

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 13 May 1999. 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.
In addition, the Board considered the advisory
opinion furnished by a designee of the Specialty Advisor for Orthopedic Surgery dated 7
April and 8 May 1998, and the Director, Naval Council of Personnel Boards dated 23 March
1999. A copy of each opinion is attached.

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. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained
in the advisory opinion from the Director, Naval Council of Personnel Boards. 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,

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL COUNCIL OF PERSONNEL BOARDS
BUILDING 36 WASHINGTON NAVY YARD.

901 M STREET SE

WASHINGTON, DC 20374-5023

IN REPLY REFER TO

5420
Ser:
23 Mar 99

99-029

Director,
Chairman,

Naval Council of Personnel Boards
Board for Correction of Naval Records

COMMENTS  AND RECOMMENDATION IN THE CASE OF FORMER

(a)  BCNR  ltr JRE DN:
(b) SECNAVINST 
(c)  CMDR

1850.4C

gist,
dated 7 Apr 98

5906-97 dated 30 Jun 98

Orthopaedic  
ndleton,

Traumatolo-
CA ltr 1070 04G

From:
To:

Subj:

Ref:

This responds to reference (a) for comments and recommen-

1.
dation regarding Petitioner's request to show that she was
The Petitioner
retired by reason of physical disability.
contends she was unfit for duty prior to her discharge because
of conditions of the left hip, right shoulder, and left
sacroiliac joint,
We have determined that Petitioner's
and 'excision of a lump.
medical records do not support a medical disability retirement.

as well as left sciatic neuritis, sinusitis

"16 January 1994";

Reference (a) incorrectly reports Petitioner's enlistment

2.
date as
January 1990".
records have been thoroughly reviewed in accordance with
reference (b) and are returned.
as our recommendation are provided below.

The Petitioner's case history and medical

her correct enlistment date is "17

The following comments as well

On 18 October 1993,

3.
separation physical examination and was found "Qualified for
separation pending ENT follow-up".

the Petitioner completed a thorough

The 

(c) concluded that

BUMED  Orthopedic Specialty Advisor comments contained in

4.
"There is no objective data to
reference 
support left hip fracture, leg length inequality, rotator cuff
tear,
be corrected to reflect the following  

or left sciatic neuritis" but recommended that "her record

orthopaedic  diagnoses:"

1) Left hip pain,
2) Right shoulder rotator cuff tendinitis, DNEPTE.
3) Left sciatic pain/strain, DNEPTE

surgically treated, DNEPTE.

Subj:

COMMENTS  AND RECOMMENDATION IN THE CASE OF FORMER

5.
There is insufficient evidence in Petitioner's health record
that would provide an abiding severity of pathology or frequency
of health care utilization as to justify a retrospective finding
for any of the conditions later rated by the Depart-
of
ment of Veterans Affairs (DVA).

'UNFIT'

the DVA can delete,

add or change diagnoses made by the

DVA's  jurisdiction over a case.

as long as the DVA determines a condition (for which the

The fact that a service member's medical condition was not

6.
determined to be a physical disability has nothing to do with
the 
that,
DVA is currently evaluating the veteran) to be service-con-
nected,
Service.
percentage rating as the condition worsens or improves.
other hand,
Chapter 61,
the member's separation.
on several conditions the DVA has determined to be  
connected, but are not considered disabling with regard to
active military service.

our determination,
reflects the member's condition only at the time of

The DVA can also increase or decrease the disability

In this case,

the DVA rating is based

service-

In fact it should be noted

acting under Title 10 U.S. Code

On the

In summary,

Petitioner's records and documentation support

7 .
the conclusion that she was properly separated.
'FIT FOR DUTY'
was
on 16 January 1994.
ness,
and therefore recommend that her petition be denied.

at the time of her release from active duty
I find no evidence of prejudice, unfair-
or impropriety in the adjudication of Petitioner's case,

The Petitioner

2

JUN-24-'00  SUN 

03:02 ID: 

'

TEL NO:

$3337  

P82

k’ I ’ 
'1'0  

171 :0 
:

l-Cell:

lal.rman

/for  

Board 
% Navy   Annex
h i n  g ton 
LJ 
a5 
,

Correction  of Naval Records

DC 

203-/o-5lOc1

CDR,  

MC,  US

N

orrection  

of  Naval Records

[a)  Department  

01 the Navy board for Correction of

Nav&l

(1,)  CDR
(c) 

Records 

ItI-  Docket No.  

5906-Y’/,  dtd b  
ltr  of  response dtd 7  

bldy  
hpr  

Departrrienr;  or  the Navy  Board 
Records

ltr  Docket  

#S906-97  dtd  

7 Jan  

3%

Ear  Correction of:   Naval

 
~8
98

In response

1.
commetrlt;.

~0 

rer.erence  (a), the  

followi~'ry

E a 

c my

a cl 

d i 

c I 

0 n 

ii 1

 

rnodleIc&tlolls

(rs),  paragraphs  

! and 8.

certainly could have been released
hopaedic  

viewpolnr  it  

she  was on a
on the other hand.  

~

 

(311 

tllodiiied  

duLy status as a  

prior to separation.

reier  to my recommendation for diagnoses
ztnd  deletions) in reference

please 
i 
(additions 
I:n  my opinion,
active  
du
from 
rull  duty status
~a% 
cjiaynoses  and able to perform her full duties.
physical 
LAOS  could have  
Duty Board to allow further evaluation and treatment,
catrd.
i,or  these  
she refused further
L' 
.t 
1'~ 
bohld  
fog  further  

hex
been  medically extended by

orthopa.edic  diagnoses.

conditions
 

secondary  to  

case could  

r.ererred  

'Lhen  be  

-fitnets  

for her  

dispos

~.est 

i d 1 

Llit_: 

Lo  

If,

result  of her  

/ 0 r

orthopacdic
aI.1 d 
m 
orrhopaeciic  
 

et 
diacjnos?s.  

inltiarlon  of  
LimlLed
lndi--
it 
treaT;menL

lf recommended  

1 e 

co 

p 

 

she

a
11ti1

ii

did not allow for return to full duty, or
medlcal  treatment for her

orthopaedic  

 
f'tlysical  

 
COIII-
~whluc'ltion

5UliJ :

ONS  ICO FORMER