DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD-

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370.510

0

JRE
Docket No: 829-01
14 November 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 25 October 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
hearing panel of the Physical Evaluation Board which considered your case on 1 February
2000, 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

SAN DIEGO FORMAL PEB RATIONALE

IN THE CASE OF

A medical board was held at Naval Medical Center, San Diego, California
on 21 June 1999 with the following diagnoses:
1.

Status post right proximal distal patellar realignment with
recurrent dislocation of the right  
Status post left patellar proximal and distal realignment (V4589)

patella (8363)

2.

The informal Physical Evaluation Board found the member unfit for duty on
08 December 1999 under VA Codes 5299-5003, rated his condition at 10%
disability and separation with severance pay.

This member appeared before the formal PEB on 01 February
to be found unfit for duty under VA Code 5257(R), rated at 30% disability
and placed on the TDRL.

  2000 requesting

Accepted documentary evidence consisted of:

Exhibit A 
Exhibit B 
Exhibit C 
Exhibit D 
Exhibit E 

-
-
-
-
-

PEB Case File
Additional Medical Evidence
Addendum to PEB dtd  
l/3/00
PRT Data
Performance Evaluations

The member's medical board of 21 June 1999 makes diagnoses of status post
left patellar proximal and distal realignment and status post right
proximal distal patellar realignment with recurrent dislocation of the
right 
subjective complaint of recurrent dislocation of his right
member had had a previous medical board in December 1998.
member testified that he has been on limited duty for almost two years
with his knee problem.

The medical board notes that the member presented with a

patella.
However, the

patella.

 

The

 

Furthermore,

However, the knee was noted to be stable to varus and valgus

There is no evidence of internal instability in the member's

The physical examination in the medical board noted that the member is
able "to actively fire his quadriceps muscle and sublux the
patella
laterally."
stress.
knee.
He does have a hyper-mobile  
easily dislocating this  
duty.
member cannot do his job.
member's present condition is that
right patellar dislocation,
and now recurring approximately one time per day."
that it is now happening twice per day.

Rather, as noted in the medical board, the
"the patient complains of recurrent
first recurring approximately ten days ago

There is no evidence that the member's physicians say that the

the member's complaints are essentially subjective.

patella  that caused him to be placed on limited

patella, but it is only his complaint of

The member testified

Enclosure 

(1)

1

The member entered the hearing room walking with a very pronounced limp,
favoring his right leg.
board spaces walking entirely normally.
was that sometimes he limps and sometimes he doesn't, depending on how
sore his knee is.
board's hearing room because he had just gotten up out of a chair.

He claimed his knee was sore walking into the formal

However, the member was noted outside the formal

The member explanation of this

The member testified that his counsel had explained to him that, without
the internal instability in his knee,
rated at even 20% disability.
that his disability "deserved" more than 10%.

However, he stated that he somehow felt

he understood that he could not be

.

testified,he  understood that this was a   de novo  hearing
The member submitted

The member also  
and that the threshold issue was fitness for duty.
an addendum dated 3 January 2000 which notes that the member had mild
patellofemoral crepitus and a positive patellar compression test.
However, there was no evidence of effusion in spite of the member's
claims of chronic swelling.
from  2 degrees of hyperextension to 135 degrees of  
The 
evidence of internal instability in the knee.
dislocatable with lateral stress."
However,
the member's  
duties.
member was rebutting the board findings.
explaining why the member cannot walk or climb stairs.

patella would dislocate simply performing his routine

the addendum was noted to be dictated because the

Further, the member's range of motion was

flexion and no
patella was "easily

there is no indication that

There is no objective data

Finally,

The member testified that his  
stairs or getting out of a car,
on its own or that he can reduce it manually with no difficulty.
member claimed that a problem arises because, when it dislocates, he
falls.
dislocating by walking with a limp, favoring his right leg.

However, the member also testified that he can prevent it

patella sometimes dislocates climbing

but he notes that it immediately reduces

The

The member testified that this was on shore duty

The member's performance evaluations are contained in Exhibit C and note
that the member was rated at or above standards in all categories and
"Must Promote" on his last performance evaluation covering the period
June 1998 to June 1999.
and working around the barracks,
However, it must be noted again that the member was performing his
routine assigned duties without difficulty.
evidence to show why the member could not perform his routine duties as
boatswain's mate.
with his knee, these complaints are subjective.
member has a hyper-mobile  
interferes with his ability to carry out the duties of his rank and rate.
In sum, the member has a hyper-mobile  
patella very easily.

The member has subjective complaints of what this

While the member has dramatic complaints of difficulty

patella, but it is not clear that this actually

not working as a boatswain's mate.

patella and can dislocate his right

There is still no objective

It is clear that the

  a

2

Enclosure (1)

,

but there are no objective data to show that the

hyper-mobility means,
member cannot actually carry out his duties.
had a very significant limp coming into the hearing room, he had no limp
when he was observed walking outside the formal board spaces.
testified that,
Therefore,
the formal board finds the member fit for continued naval service.

after careful consideration of all relevant medical evidence,

if he is found fit,

he intends to stay in the Navy.

Finally, while the member

The member

Enclosure (1)