DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

JRE
Docket No:  

5898-00

29 November 2001

This is in reference to  
provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.

your,application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 16 November 2001. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures
applicable to the proceedings of this 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 opinions furnished by the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery dated 26
September and 13 November 2000, and the Director, Naval Council of Personnel Boards
(NCPB) dated 14 February 2001. A copy of each opinion is attached. In addition, the
Board considered the submission of your attorney dated 6 November 2001.

Documentary material considered by the Board

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 provided by the Director, Naval Council of Personnel Boards.
not persuaded that you were unfit to perform duties commensurate with your grade and
specialty prior to your discharge from the Navy on 20 July 2000. The Board was somewhat
perplexed by the determination of the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery
were not physically qualified for service in the Naval Reserve, given your outstanding
performance of duty, the finding of fitness that was made prior to your discharge, and,
presumably, that you were found physically qualified for commissioning in the Naval
Reserve. As noted by the Director, NCPB, it is likely that you would have been found
physically qualified for further service in the Naval Reserve had you requested review of
your case by a physical evaluation board (PEB), notwithstanding the determination of
BUMED officials that you were not physically qualified.

 

(BUMED) that you

It was

 the Naval

In addition, the Board noted that as you did not have a remaining reserve obligation

The Board noted that a determination of your fitness for duty and entitlement to disability
benefits administered by the Department of the Navy is under the cognizance of
Disability Evaluation System (DES), rather than the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery. The
fact that 
BUMED found you not physically qualified for service in the Naval Reserve does
not mandate that you be found unfit for duty by the DES, or that the Board grant your
request.
following your discharge, that portion of SECNAVINST  
pertaining to a period of reserve obligation is not applicable to you.
Department of Veterans Affairs has awared you service connection and disability benefits for
several conditions is not probative of the existence of material error or injustice in your
record, because that agency makes disability benefit determinations without regard to the
issue of fitness to perform military duty.  The degeneration of your right elbow, right
shoulder and cervical spine, history of cancer, hyperlipidemia, osteopenia, and chronic pain,
did not preclude you from performing your duties prior to your discharge, and it does not
appear that a medical evaluation board was necessary in your case; however, had you been
evaluated by a PEB prior to your discharge, in all likelihood you would have been found fit
for duty.

1850.4C, paragraph 3302,

The fact that the

The Board regrets that you may have been given erroneous advice concerning your service in
the Naval Reserve following your discharge from the Navy, and that you would not have
resigned from the Navy had you known that you would not be permitted to continue your
career in the Naval Reserve. Unfortunately, those factors do not provide a basis for
recommending that your request for correction of your record be granted.

In view of the foregoing, your application has been denied.
members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

The names and votes of the

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVAL COUNCIL OF PERSONNEL  BOARDS

WASHINGTON NAVY YARD
KENNON  STREET SE RM 309

720 
WASHINGTON, DC 203746023

:

From 
To:

Subj:

Ref:

Director, Naval Council of Personnel Boards
Executive Director, Board of Correction for Naval Records

(a) Chairman, BCNR JRE: jdh DN:
(b) SECNAVINST  
(c) Manual of the Medical Department Chapter 15 Section 28

5898-00 ltr of 24 Nov 00

1850.4D

1.
This letter responds to reference (a) which requested comments and
a recommendation regarding petitioner's request for correction of her
records to officially determine her health status and document the
level of disability, if need be.

2.
The Petitioner's case history, contained in reference (a), was
thoroughly reviewed in accordance with reference (b) and is returned.
The following chronology, comments and recommendations are provided:

A.

10 January 1996, Petitioner presented to the General Surgery

Clinic with a nodule in her left breast.
carcinoma.

was treated for cancer.

Petitioner

The biopsy found infiltrating

- 13 April 1996,

Petitioner was returned to full duty.

- December 1997, Petitioner fell and sustained a neck injury and

a radial head fracture at her right elbow.

- January 1998, the fracture was examined.

- 22 January 1999, a mammogram was performed

any malignancy was found.

and no evidence of

- 6 April 1999, Petitioner was diagnosed with Angina.

- 25 May 1999, Petitioner experienced C-Spine pain.

- September 1999, arthroscopy was performed to remove loose

bodies from the elbow.

- 21 January 2000, Petitioner had an 

OB/GYN appointment and no

abnormalities were noted.

- 24 January 2000,

a separation physical was performed.

Petitioner's medical history was documented and no abnormalities were
noted.

Petitioner was found fit for separation.

- 28 January 2000, Petitioner was seen by oncology. No

disability secondary to breast cancer was noted.

- May 2000, Petitioner took and passed the Physical Readiness
(PRT).

Test 

Subj:

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION IN THE CASE OF

- 20 July 2000, Petitioner was discharged.

- 8 August 2000, Petitioner was found not physically qualified

for retention in either the Ready Reserve or Standby Reserve.
Petitioner was advised by NPC that she had the option of resigning her
reserve commission or requesting a PEB determination as to her PQ/NPQ
status.
availed herself of this latter option which,
the records, would likely have resulted in petitioner being found PQ
for continued service in the reserves.

The records do not contain any information that petitioner

based upon our review of

The Petitioner's cancer has been in sustained remission since
Other medical conditions appeared to have some chronicity, but

B.
1996.
none had generated documentation of interference with her ability to
perform her duties as a Dental Officer except Petitioner's ability to
participate in the PRT.
in the PRT is not enough to be found unfit.
Evaluation Board 
or her duties.
will assign a disability rating.
case if the PEB had evaluated this member, she would have been found
fit for continued active duty service.

(PEB) is to evaluate a member's fitness to perform his
If a Petitioner is not fit for further service, the PEB
Based on the record provided in this

Standing alone, the inability to participate
The role of the Physical

The Petitioner made a voluntarily

This case highlights the difference

In summary, the evidence in the record does not support any changes
At the time of Petitioner's discharge from

3.
to the record in this case.
the Navy, the Petitioner was fit for retention, the standard on which
PEB determinations are made.
decision to leave active duty.
between a physical finding of fit for retention for continued active
duty service by the PEB and the accession standards required for
affiliation with the Naval Reserve post-discharge.
affiliation with the Naval Reserve is higher than the standard for
retention on active duty.
Ready Reserve who have incurred a statutory obligation upon
commissioning or extension as a Navy Reservist.
released from active duty and in order for her to affiliate with a
Reserve Unit, she was required to meet the necessary physical
standards.
If the Petitioner had a statutory obligation that was not
included in the case file, then her case can be returned for further
review.
Notwithstanding the above, had member requested PEB review of
her case, it is likely she would have been found PQ for service in the
reserves.

This Petitioner was

(c) only applies to members of the

Reference 

The threshold for

If there are any questions, my point of contact for this case is

4.
Lieutenant Darren S. Wall, JAGC, U.S. Naval Reserve.
at 

(202)685-6399.

He is available

Director

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BUREAU OF 
MED f C l NE AND SURGERY
W

2300 E STREET N

W ASH I NGTON DC 20372

.5300

,

Director, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery Code (25)
Chairman, Board for Correction for Naval Records

IN REPLY REFER 

TO

6010
25125
13 November 2000

Letter.Chairman Board of Correction for Naval Records Dated 6 

(a) 
(b) Phone con of 16 October 2000 wit
(c) MANMED Chapter 15-28
(d) Commander, Navy Personnel Command letter SER PERS-911 dated 8 Aug 00

Ott 2000

I

From:
To:

Subj 
:

Ref:

Encl:

In references (a) and (b) you expressed concerns that we did not accept the findings of the

1.
separation physical examination so that
Reserves despite reference (c) stating  “in or
member must be found physically qualified for affiliation, and that  “a separation physical

ould affiliate with the Navy
ffiliate with a reserve unit the

hs will suffice. “’In our review of her medical records we
had multiple medical conditions that should have
om active duty. The extensive list of medical problems

included: breast cancer treated by surgery, radiation and chemotherapy; multiple falls resulting in
many orthopedic problems; non-union of fractured 6 and 7th ribs with occasional pain; bony
neck spur with neck spasms at the second cervical disk; tendon entrapment right elbow; irregular
menses; right ovarian cyst and pelvic dysplasia; osteoporosis; hypercholestemia; chronic
hoarseness; nose bleeds, chest pain, constipation and diarrhea; back, multiple joint and muscle
limit her ability to function in
; and hearing loss. In view of these problems
pain 
the operational environment we determined that
qualified for affiliation or retention in the Navy Reserves.

as not physically

As discussed in our previous letter, the Navy Personnel Command informed
that she had the option to request that her medical record be referre
ion Board 

(PEB) for a final determination of her physical qualification to remain

“fit”
niay be allowed to affiliate with the navy Reserves. If the PEB finds her unfit, then she

in the naval service. This review would be a  “fit/unfit” determin
unfit. If the PEB fin
assign disability ratings is she is found to be 
then she 
would be separated from the Reserves without disability benefits. It is important to remember
that because many of her conditions manifested while she was on active duty, there is a very
good possibility that she would be eligible for disability compensation and medical treatment
from the Veterans Administration.

In conclusion, because she has already been separated from active duty and we have found

ed for affiliation with the reserve component, we recommend that
request that her case be 
service. It is also our opinion  

firlly rev
th

have been separated 
Board (PEB) to determine her fitness for continued service.

from active duty until her case was reviewed by the Physical Evaluation

Enclosure one is returned for appropriate administrative action. I hope this clarifies our

5.
position on this case.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BUREAU OF MED

IC INE AND SURGERY

2300 

E STREET N

W

W ASH I NGTON DC

20372.5300

 

IN 

70

REPLV  

REFER 

6010
25125
26 September 2000

Director, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery Code (25)
Chairman, Board for Correction for Naval Records

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ICO

(a) Letter,Chairman Board of Correction for Naval Records Dated 14 September 2000
(b) MANMED Chapter 15-28
(c) Commander, Navy Personnel Command letter SER PERS-911 dated 8 Aug 00

From:
To:

Subj 
:

Ref:

Encl:

1. As requested in reference (a) we have reviewed
of Corrections regarding the apparent disparity of h
but then being found not physically qualified for retention in the Naval Reserves.

letter to the Board
se from active duty

2. As required by the Manual of the Medical Department (MANMED), Chapter 15-28,
BUMED reviews the medi
reference (b), 
in the Navy Reserves. When we review
her multiple medical problems included
many orthopedic problems; non-unit of fractured ribs; tendon entrapment of her right elbow as
well as multiple endocrine and medical disorders. In view of these problems that markedly limit
her ability to function in the operational environment we determined that LCDR Ballassari-Cruz
was not physically qualified for retention in the Navy Reserves.

cal records we noted
le falls resulting in

‘ng to affiliate with or remain

3.

In reference (a) you requested that we explain the disparity between our determination that
as not qualified for retention in the Navy Reserves, and the previous
e was fit for release from active duty on 20 July 2000. You also requested
our opinion whether or not her release from active duty without benefit of medical or physical
evaluation boards was erroneous, and finally asked what would be an appropriate disposition of
this case. We have already addressed the rationale and reference for our finding of her not being
physically qualified. We are un
active duty was appropriate 
to determine whether or not sh
Personnel Command informe
medical record be referred to
physical qualification to remain in the naval service. If the PEB
“fit” then she may be allowed to remain in the Navy Reserves. I
this will support her claim that she should have been evaluated by the PEB prior to her separation
from active duty.

ot the decision to release her from
has not completed the review process
avy Reserves. In reference (C) Navy
hat she had the option to request that her

becau
.

5. In conclusion, we recommend that
reviewed by the Physical Evaluation Board for fitness for continued service.

r case be fully

6. Enclosure one is returned for appropriate administrative action. Thank you for the
opportunity to review this most interesting case.

By direction