DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

Y

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370.510

0

JRE
Docket No:  
25 November 2002

652502

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 21 November 2002. 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.

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 rationale of the
hearing panel of the Physical Evaluation Board which considered your case on 15 July 1999,
a copy of which is attached. The Board noted that unlike, the Department of Veterans
Affairs, which rates all conditions incurred in or aggravated by military service, regardless of
degree, the military departments are permitted to rate only those conditions which render the
service member unfit to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating.
not demonstrated that you were unfit for duty, the Board was unable to recommend any
corrective action in your case. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names
and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

As you have

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

S'AN  DIEGO FORMAL PEB RATIONALE

IN THE CASE OF

A medical board was held at Naval Hospital, Jacksonville, Florida
on  15 January 1999 with the following diagnosis:

1.

Low Hack Pain  

(7242)

2.

Patellofemoral

 Pain Syndrome

The informal Physical Evaluation Board found the member
05 April 1999.

 

fit  

for  duty on

This member appeared before the formal PEB on
be found unfit for duty under VA Codes
5257 (bilateral knees) at  
(lumbosacral strain) at 20% for a total of 408
the TDRL.

15 July 1999 requesting to

-7900  (hyperthyroidism) at  

108,

lo%,  5250 (hip ankylosis) at 108, and 5295

disability and placed on

Accepted documentary evidence consisted of:

Exhibit A 
Exhibit B 
Exhibit C 
Exhibit D  
Exhibit E  
Exhibit F  

-  PEB Case File
~  Additional Medical Information
-  Performance Evaluations
- PRT Data
-  Ltr fro
-  Ltr fro

DC,

dated 10 Jun 99

pervisor) undated

The past medical history in the medical board notes that the

The member's medical board of 15 January 1999 reports a primary diagnosis
of low back pain and a secondary diagnosis of patellofemoral syndrome
bilateral.
member had a history of hyperthyroidism which is
The member appeared before the formal board requesting ratings for his
low back pain,
ankylosis.
or the PEB case file that a diagnosis of hip ankylosis is made.
complaints will be address seriatum.

There is no where in the medical record or the medical board

his hyperthyroidism,

treated with Synthroid.

his patellofemoral syndrome, and hip

These

The member

With reference to the member's hyperthyroidism, he testified this was
diagnosed in March 1998.
accident he had in 1997.
medical record.
0.05 mcg of Synthroid for approximately the past 17 months.
testified that  
Synthroid was an unfitting condition.
he was unfit for continued Naval service because he was taking Synthroid.
In fact,

taking Synthroid is not in itself an unfitting condition.

He attributes his hyperthyroidism to an auto
However,

that is no where suggested in the
the member has been stable on a dose of

a-  a disability counselor, told him that taking

In any case,

The member in no way asserted that

The member also requested to be rated for ankylosis of the hip. He
testified that his last treatment for this was on 30 June 1999, but that
note is not in the record.
chiropractor for manipulation.

He says it was his routine visit to his

Exhibit B contains additional medical

Enclosure 

(1)

There are several visits

.

However,

evidence of visits since the medical board.
there to his chiropractor for manipulation of his spine.
these visits does the chiropractor mention a diagnosis of
There is a reference to one leg being shorter than the other by a half
inch 
is a fixed leg length differential and not simply tilting of the pelvis.
Further,
fact has an ankylosis.
does not suggest that there is a decreased range of motion in the
member's hips.
has the diagnosis of hip ankylosis or,
diagnosis,

that it is a separately unfitting condition.

there are no measurements offered  

there are no X-rays of the member's hips suggesting that he in

Finally,

Thus,

 

 

there was no evidence offered that the member even

stipulating that he has the

the medical board physical examination

In none of
hip,ankylosis.

demonstr~ating

 that 

an
t_Iiis

There is no mention of it again  

until

The member was then referred for physical therapy, but

With regard to the member's complaint of patellofemoral syndrome, this
was originally diagnosed in 1993.
August 1998.
there is no record of follow-up until February 1999.
between 1993 and February 1999,
sought treatment for his patellofemoral syndrome.
no evidence that the member lost any time from work because of his knee
complaints.
therapy which were kept there.and are not in his medical record.
However,
assertion of anything he specifically cannot do because of his knee pain.
In the medical board there are reports of knee X-rays that were within
normal limits and there is a report of a normal bone scan.
was inadequate evidence offered that the member has patellofemoral
syndrome or that it is a separately unfitting condition.

The member reports that there are some records in

even stipulating that such records exist,

 

there is no evidence that the member

In the interim

Furthermore, there is

physicdl

the member made no

'Thus,

there

the medical record reports the

However,

With regard to the member's low back pain,
member's complaints of low back pain with occasional radiation into his
right lower extremity.
done and showing any abnormality.
CAT scans.
examination notes no evidence of lateralizing signs such as abnormalities
in the deep tendon reflexes.
asymmetry.
chiropractor regularly for manipulation.
member does come for manipulation,
objective abnormalities in the member's low back.

There are no reports of any abnormal X-rays.

In the member's testimony,

there are no reports of 

There is no evidence of muscle wasting or

he mentioned that he goes to his

The chiropractor notes that the

but there is no evidence of any

There are no reports of any abnormal

MRI's

 that were

The physical

it must be noted that the member also was noted to have a

In passing,
history of migraines,
evaluation that found him fit for duty neurologically after evaluating
these headaches (Exhibit B).

but on 23 June 1999 the member had a  

Exhibit
evaluat

C contains
ion covers

the member's performance evaluations.
the period from March 1998 to March 1999.

2

neurologic

The most recent

This

Enclosure 

( 1 )

evaluation notes the member performing at or above standards in all
categories and overall rates him as must promote.
member received a Navy Achievement Medal during this period for his
outstdnding performance.
conversion to the SK rate because of his outstanding
The member testified that he was also working as a Red Cross
instructor during this performance period
civilian 

  for his command.

community and

Moreover,

 

Furthermore, the

the member was recommended for
 

and instructed  

perfor-mance.
hot-h  

CPR
i11  his

according to his letter  
attached to that letter).

The member appeared before the formal

PEB case file,

Remarkably,
no where in the member's  
 

or even in his letter to the PEB dated

hip ankylosis, appears

the member has 20 different diagnoses

The member has been on stable treatment for his

In sum,
the PEB dated 22 April 1999 (list of diagnoses
The member's medical board was for two diagnoses, low back pain and
patellofemoral pain syndrome only.
board asking for ratings on four diagnoses.
diagnoses,
record,
1999.
with Synthroid for approximately 17 months.
subjective low back pain without objective evidence of neuromuscular
dysfunction.
rays,
1993.
also a Level III treatment failure for weight control.
testified that his maximum allowed weight is 188 pounds.
weight on his separations physical
the member testified that his weight at the time of the formal board was
240  pounds.
outstanding,
above minimum Navy standards.

normal bone scan,
The member has failed  

Finally,
indicating that he has always carried out his duties well

the member's performance

The member complains of bilateral knee pain with normal

 

 

and only three visits to medical recorded since

.body  fat weight standards five times and is

of 26 January 1999 was 192 pounds  

evaluations are  

one of these

medicdl

22 April

hyperthyroidi_sm

The member complains of

The member

The member's

t:>

X-

an'd

uniforml;~

Finally,

it is of paramount importance to remember

In evaluating any individual,
that the mere presence of a diagnosis is not synonymous with disability.
In the instant case, the member has a 20 "diagnoses" and four for which
he asks ratings.
member has always performed well above required Navy standards.
the member appeared at the formal board wearing bilateral arm braces for
his carpal tunnel syndrome.
However,
has received no subsequent treatment.
wear the braces whenever his carpal tunnel syndrome acted up and his
wrists were hurting him this morning.

However,

the record is unequivocally clear that the

This was diagnosed in 1993 and the member

he says he was told to

Therefore,
the formal board finds the member fit for continued Naval service.

after careful consideration of all relevant medical evidence,

Enclosure 

(1)