DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

JRE
Docket No: 6384-99
10 July 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.

2001. Your allegations of error and injustice

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 28 July  
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
In addition, the Board considered the advisory
applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
opinions furnished by the Navy Specialty Leader for Cardiology, dated 14 July 2000 and the
Director, Naval Council of Personnel Boards, dated 4 January 2001, and the information you
submitted in response thereto. A copy of each opinion is attached.

It noted, however, that fitness determinations are made for the

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 opinions.
Secretary of the Navy by officials of the Disability Evaluation System (DES), rather than the
Bureau of Medicine and Surgery.
atrial
temporarily unfit as a submariner for at least six months after your first episode of
fibrillation does not support the conclusion that you had a life threatening heart condition, or
that you were unfit to perform the duties of your office, grade, rank, or rating because of a
heart condition. The Board was not persuaded that you received substandard or inadequate
medical care prior to your transfer to the Temporary Disability Retired List, that your
condition was misdiagnosed, or that you were unfit for duty because of the effects of a heart
atrial
condition. Although it is very unfortunate that you went on to develop paroxysmal
fibrillation, the deterioration of your condition following your release from active duty is not
probative of the existence of error or injustice in your case.

The specialty leader ’s statement that you would have been

 

 

With regard to the issue of whether or not you were accorded just treatment by the DES, the
Board noted that you could have been found fit for duty under the presumption of fitness
(PFIT) rule then in effect, because your condition was not life threatening, and not likely to
result in either death or significant life-span reduction, or deteriorate to the point where it
It appears that the you were given the
would warrant a disability rating of 100 percent.
benefit of the doubt by the PEB, and found unfit for duty notwithstanding the PFIT rules,
because of the possibility that avascular necrosis would develop in your hip and render you
totally disabled.

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 COUNC

I L OF PERSONNEL BOARDS

W ASH I NGTON NA
KENNON  STREET SE RM 309

720 
W ASH I NGTON

.  DC 203746023

W  YARD

5420
Ser:
01-01
4 Jan 2001

From:
To:

Subj:

Director,
Executive Director,

Naval Council of Personnel Boards

Board for Correction of Naval Records

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION IN THE CASE 

OB

, Ref:

(a) Chairman,
(b)  SECNAVINST  

BCNR JRE:jdh DN:

1850.4D

6384-99 

ltr  of 23 

Ott  00

This responds to reference (a) which requested comments and a

1.
recommendation regarding petitioner's request for correction of his records
to show that he was entitled to a thirty percent disability rating under
VASRD Code 7018-7010 (SUPRAVENTRICULAR ARRHYTHMIAS 
the time of his placement on the TDRL in 1996.
evidence in this case does not support the petitioner's request for a change
to records.

We have determined that the

& PACEMAKER PLACEMENT) at

The petitioner's case history,

2.
reviewed in accordance with reference 
comments and recommendations are provided.

contained in reference (a), was thoroughly
The following

(b)  and is returned.

a. Petitioner suffered a single episode of Post-Traumatic Atria1

Fibrillation most likely incident to the chest trauma (Right Pneumothorax
secondary to rib fractures) accompanying his 30 September 1995 bicycle
accident while on terminal leave.
likely rendered petitioner medically disqualified/unfit to remain in the
submarine community, but would not have made him Unfit for general duty at
the time of his placement 'on the TDRL in accordance with DOD and Navy
regulations governing PEB determinations.

The aforementioned arrhythmia would have

b.

Subsequent later progression and recurrence of the arrhythmia while

on the TDRL in conjunction with the requirement for a pacemaker renders the
petitioner currently Unfit for Duty.
difference between service connection,
case,
duty which does not appear to have been the case.

This situation exemplifies the
which is certainly established in this

and ratability due to unfitness while on active

for VA rating purposes,

C .

The classification of member's heart problem as a Category III

U.S.C.

Further,

under both  DOD  and Navy regulations,

Condition at the time of his placement on the TDRL (not separately unfitting
and not contributing to the unfitting condition) was correct and in
accordance with regulations.
TDRL re-evaluations are only to consider the unfitting conditions that
resulted in placement on the TDRL.
of 10 
determination only for those conditions for which the member was carried on
the TDRL (Category I and II).
Diagnoses"
heart condition was correctly categorized as Category III at the time of his
placement on the TDRL,
accordingly,
their re-evaluation of petitioner's case.

it did not meet the definition of a new diagnosis and,
was properly not considered by the formal board in 1999 during

1210 which discusses TDRL evaluation and final Secretarial

Exceptions to this policy are made for "New

This policy is supported by the language

1850.4D,  Section 3618.

Because petitioner's

under SECNAVINST 

,

In summary,

3.
petitioner's records as requested.
petitioner's request.

the record in this case does not support a correction of the

Accordingly,

recommend denial of the

2

F

14 

JUL 2000

ONS ICO
!.

From:
To:

Navy Specialty Leader for Cardiology
Chairperson, Board for Correction of Naval Records

Subj 

:

Ref

Your request of 20 JUN 2000; Docket No: 6384-99

Encl:

‘

(1) BCNR File/Medical Record
(2) Service Record
(3) Disability Evaluation Board Proceedings
(4) VA Records/Medical Records

1. Pursuant to your request, enclosures 

(l)-(4) were reviewed.

2. The following facts are established:

a. The member “reportedly” had a normal exercise stress and cardiology evaluation

at NNMC Bethesda prior to going on terminal leave in 1995. This is not well
documented.

b. The member suffered injuries while on terminal leave, not while in the line of

duty, when he fell off of his bicycle on 30 SEP 95 and suffered orthopedic injuries
to his hip and a right pneumothorax from fractured ribs. Post-operatively, he
experienced atria1 fibrillation with a rapid ventricular response on 02 OCT 95.
The ventricular rate was 177 (greater than 100% 
ischemic ST changes (a non-ischemic stress test). He was evaluated for cause
with the findings of a normal Ventilation/Perfusion scan on 03 OCT and a normal
echocardiogram (including left atria1 size of 
atria1 fibrillation spontaneously converted to sinus rhythm.

mphr/age) without evidence of

3.0cm 

= normal) on 02 OCT. The

c. The medical board of 09 NOV 95 does list diagnosis 

#6 as atria1 fibrillation

#273 1. Evaluation on 22 NOV 95, by a Navy Cardiologist, found:

resolved 
“Atria1 fibrillation, one episode, resolved. At this time, the most likely
explanation for the atria1 fibrillation is trauma related and there is minimal risk for
future events.”

d. The member however did have recurrence of atria1 fibrillation following

placement on the TDRL. This is first documented as an admission in OCT 97 at
which time he required D.C. cardioversion (which was unsuccessful) and was
placed on Sotalol with conversion to normal sinus rhythm. He was re-evaluated
75%), a non-ischemic
with a normal Echocardiogram 05 NOV 97 (LA 35 and EF 
12 minute Bruce exercise test 
coronary disease on Cardiolite nuclear scanning.

(4.2mph at 16% grade) and found no evidence of

e. Holter monitoring of his rhythm did document a 2.9 second pause and then a 6

second pause was noted, meeting the criteria for placement of a permanent
pacemaker, which took place 13 NOV 97 and was revised 15 NOV 97.

f. At the TDRL examination of 14 DEC 98, the member was noted to still be on

Sotalol and Warfarin for intermittent episodes of atria1 fibrillation.
,

.

.

Subj:

‘

3. Opinion: Upon review of the facts, I concur that the member would have been

further

temporarily unfit for his MOS as a submariner for at least 6 months after his first
episode of atria1 fibrillation. However, the member was on terminal leave and 
service aboard submarines was not at issue. The presence of atria1 fibrillation may
have made him unfit for sea duty but would not have necessarily made him unfit for
shore duty. A single episode of atria1 fibrillation, presumably secondary to a traumatic
episode, would not have made him unfit for transfer to the fleet reserve. I believe that
the evaluation was complete in OCT 95 (a tachycardia stress test, an echocardiogram,
and V/Q scan), that further evaluation at that time was not indicated and that
pacemaker placement would not have been indicated or even considered. The
episodes of 
beta blocker which does cause sinus node effects) to prevent recurrence of atria1
fibrillation. I concur with the Navy Cardiologist
the facts available at that time. The recurrence of atria1 fibrillation or paroxysmal
atria1 fibrillation could not have been accurately predicted as it occurs in
approximately 50% first time cases of atria1 fibrillation. It is my opinion, that the PEB
action on the report of 06 NOV 95 was correct in not considering the atria1 fibrillation
as being unfitting. I also concur with the subsequent Cardiologists that the atria1
fibrillation could have been caused by the blunt trauma to the chest (resulting in rib
fractures and a pneumothorax) but respectfully disagree with the member
that it was caused by the hip fracture and/or the treatment rendered.

3+ second pauses did not occur until the member was placed on Sotalol (a

’s opinion of 22 NOV 95, based upon

’s opinion

Very respectfully,

CAPT, MC, USN