DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

JRE
Docket No: 431-01
18 June 2001

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 7 June 2001.
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. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the rationale of the
2oo0,
hearing panel of the Physical Evaluation Board which considered your case on 6 June
a copy of which is attached. 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,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

Enclosure

RATIONALE:

2&-63-5007

._

THE MEMBER IS A 39 YEAR OLD 
SERVICE AT THE TIME SHE WAS PLACED ON THE TDRL ON 12 MAY 1998 WITH A
DISABILITY RATING OF 60% UNDER V.A. CODE 6350 FOR THE DIAGNOSIS:

USN(RET) WITH ABOUT 12 AND 

NCl, 

‘/z YEARS OF

(1) SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS.

ADDITIONAL DIAGNOSES THAT WERE CONSIDERED CATEGORY
WERE:

II CONDITIONS

(2) LEUKOPENIA SECONDARY TO  
#l;
(3) ARTHRITIS SECONDARY TO 
;
#l 
(4) HISTORY CONSISTENT WITH PATELLOFEMORAL SYNDROME; AND
(5) SEROSITIS SECONDARY TO  

#l.

AN ADDITIONAL DIAGNOSIS THAT WAS CONSIDERED A CATEGORY III
CONDITION WAS:

(6) MAJOR DEPRESSIVE DISORDER SINGLE EPISODE IN FULL REMISSION.

THE MEMBER UNDERWENT TDRL EVALUATION ON 13 DECEMBER 1999 AT
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE. THE INFORMAL PEB CONSIDERED THE
CASE ON 3 MARCH 2000 AND FOUND THE MEMBER UNFIT FOR DUTY BECAUSE OF
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BASED ON DIAGNOSIS NUMBER (1) AND RATABLE AT 10%
UNDER V.A. CODE 6350. THE OTHER DIAGNOSES REMAINED CLASSIFIED AS
ABOVE. THE MEMBER DISAGREED WITH THIS FINDING AND DEMANDED A
FORMAL HEARING.

JUNE 2000 AT  

BETHESD

THE MEMBER APPEARED AT THE HEARING REQUESTING TO BE FOUND UNFIT
FOR DUTY AND RETAINED ON THE TDRL AT HER PREVIOUS RATING OF 60%
SUPPokT HER REQUEST THE MEMBER PRESENTED
UNDER V.A. CODE 6,350. TO 
TESTIMONY, COPIES OF HER V.A. TREATMENT RECORDS, COPIES OF HER V.A.
RATING DECISIONS OF 9 OCTOBER 1998 AND 6 APRIL 1999, A COPY OF HER
VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION ASSESSMENT OF 20 DECEMBER 1998, AND  
MEDICAL EVIDENCE LETTERS FROM HER MOTHER AND HER FATHER.

NON-

.

AFTER CAREFUL REVIEW OF ALL THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE AND BASED ON
UNANIMOUS OPINION, THE FORMAL PEB FINDS THE MEMBER REMAINS UNFIT
FOR DUTY IN THE U.S. NAVY BECAUSE OF PHYSICAL DISABILITY. THE RECORD
DOCUMENTS THAT THE MEMBER HAS SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS, A
CHRONIC INFLAMATORY CONDITION AFFECTING MULTIPLE BODY ORGAN
SYSTEMS WITH UNPREDICTABLE EPISODES OF EXACERBATION THAT LIMIT THE
MEMBER’S ACTIVITIES AND ASSIGNABILITY SUCH THAT IT WOULD INTERFERE
WITH THE ADEQUATE PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES.

THE CURRENT TDRL EVALUATION REPORTED CURRENT SYMPTOMS OF
OCCASIONAL LOW BACK AND TAILBONE AREA PAIN, OCCASIONAL WRIST
SWELLING, OCCASIONAL SHARP CHEST PAINS THAT ARE POSITIONAL
DEPENDENT, A FLAT, RED MILDLY PRURITIC RASH ON HER LEGS THAT IS
CURRENTLY RESOLVED, OCCASIONAL PAINFUL ORAL ULCERS THAT LAST 7 TO
10 DAYS OCCURRING MAINLY DURING THE SUMMER, AND MILD FATIGUE. THE
MEMBER WAS NOT WORKING. THE PHYSICAL EXAM WAS REPORTED TO SHOW
II/VI SYSTOLIC EJECTION MURMUR AT THE
NO ORAL ULCERATIONS, A GRADE  
RIGHT UPPER STERNAL BORDER THAT CHANGES WITH VALSALVA MANEUVER,
NO HEPATOSPLENOMEGALY, NO SKIN RASHES, AND NO EVIDENCE OF
SYNOVITIS. LAB VALUES WERE REPORTED AS A WBC OF 3600 WITH 39%
LYMPHOCYTES, HEMOGLOBIN AND HEMATOCRIT AT 12.9 AND 38.8,
1:320 WITH A SPECKLED PATTERN.
RESPECTIVELY, AND AN ANA TITER  
CREATININE AND LIVER FUNCTION TESTS WERE NORMAL. X-RAYS OF THE
CHEST AND THE KNEES WERE ESSENTIALLY NORMAL. THE EKG WAS NORMAL
WITH NO ST OR T-WAVE CHANGES. THE MEMBER’S CONDITION WAS
SUMMARIZED AS CURRENTLY IN A STATE OF REMISSION WITH NO EVIDENCE OF
RASH, PLEURITIS, ARTHRITIS, OR PERICARDITIS, BUT WITH CONTINUED FATIGUE
AND A MILD LEUKOPENIA. THE MEMBER IS CURRENTLY UNDER TREATMENT
WITH PLAQUENIL. THE RECORDS PRESENTED DID NOT SHOW ANY
INCAPACITATING EXACERBATIONS OF THE LUPUS. ALTHOUGH THE MEMBER
CLAIMED TO CONTINUE TO HAVE CHEST PAIN, IRREGULAR HEART BEAT, DIZZY
SPELLS, SHORTNESS OF BREATH, STIFF JOINTS, NUMBNESS AND TINGLING IN
THE FINGERS, PLUS CHRONIC FATIGUE WITH SLEEPING 12 TO 15 HOURS PER DAY,
THE FORMAL PEB DID NOT FIND THE TESTIMONY CONVINCING THAT THE
SLEEPING 12 TO 15 HOURS PER DAY WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE LUPUS. THE
RECORDS SHOW THIS IS MORE RELATED TO HER DEPRESSIVE SYMPTOMS.
THEREFORE, THE LUPUS IS MOST APPROPRIATELY RATED AT 10% UNDER V.A.
2,3,4, AND 5 REMAIN CATEGORY II CONDITIONS THAT
CODE 6350. DIAGNOSES  
CONTRIBUTE TO DIAGNOSIS NUMBER 1.

.OF 

.

THE RECORDS PRESENTED SHOW THE MEMBER CONTINUES TO HAVE
SIGNIFICANT DEPRESSION REQUIRING ONGOING TREATMENT WITH ZOLOFT AND
INDIVIDUAL PSYCHOTHERAPY FOR DIAGNOSES OF RECURRENT DEPRESSIVE
DISORDER, DYSTHYMIC DISORDER, AND PANIC DISORDER. ALTHOUGH
DEPRESSION CAN BE A MANIFESTATION OF SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTI-IEMATOSUS,
lN THIS CASE THE ORIGINAL EPISODE OF MAJOR DEPRESSION PRECEDED THE

DIAGNOSIS OF SYSTEMIC LUPUS AND WAS MORE REACTIVE IN  NATURE
RELATED TO HER JOB AND FEELING OVERWHELMED WITH THE DEMANDS
PLACED ON HER AFTER COMPLETING NAVY COUNSELOR SCHOOL. ALSO, THERE
WAS A PRIOR HISTORY OF DEPRESSIVE SYMPTOMS IN 1993 RELATED TO JOB
STRESSES AND A PARTIAL HYSTERECTOMY. FURTHER, THERE WAS A FAMILY
HISTORY OF DEPRESSION IN THE MEMBER ’S MOTHER THAT HAD REQUIRED
HOSPITALIZATION AND TREATMENT. THEREFORE, THE DIAGNOSIS OF MAJOR
DEPRESSIVE DISORDER IS NOT CONSIDERED RELATED TO THE SYSTEMIC
 
AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL MEDICAL BOARD FOR THE LUPUS IN AUGUST
1997, THE MEMBER HAD BEEN RETURNED TO FULL DUTY BY A MEDICAL BOARD
FROM PSYCHIATRY DATED 24 MAY 1997 INDICATING THE DEPRESSION WAS IN
FULL REMISSION ON MEDICATION. THEREFORE, THE DEPRESSION DIAGNOSIS
WAS APPROPRIATELY CONSIDERED A CATEGORY III CONDITION AT THE TIME OF
TDRL: CONSEQUENTLY, IT IS NOT RATABLE AND REMAINS
PLACEMENT ON THE  
A CATEGORY III CONDITION.

Lupus.

NG

PANEL

. 

I

.

L