DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

JRE
Docket No: 
28 February 2001

661740

__
--

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 15 February 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. In addition, the Board
considered a report prepared by a physician with Jacksonville Oncology, dated 8 January
2001..

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 noted that a bone marrow biopsy performed on 20
September 2000 was negative for evidence of lymphoma, and a whole body PET scan
showed no focal areas of hypermetabolic activity, which is compatible with no evidence of
any lymphoma. Other pertinent tests were negative for the presence of lymphoma. 
the results of that testing, your oncologist concluded that there was no evidence of any
residual persistent or metastatic non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. You were offered radiation
therapy because it was thought that you might receive some benefit from that treatment;
however, you were advised that the evidence for that conclusion was equivocal. You
declined to undergo the treatment at that time.

“Based on

Although it is very unfortunate that you were not given timely notification of the results of
the biopsy which showed evidence of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, it does not appear that
material error or injustice occurred as a result thereof. In this regard, the Board noted that
non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is not unfitting per se, and the available evidence does not
demonstrate that you were unfit for duty at the time of your release from active duty.

Accordingly, and in view of the findings of your private oncologist noted above, there is no
basis for restoring your to active duty retroactive to 4 August 1999. 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 
injustice.

error&

Sincerely,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

Enclosure

,I

Jan 

26 01

 

02:52p

’ JAN-IO-2001 WED 03:

MFlNflGED  
  56  PM JACKSONVILLE

CFIRE NH   JAX FL

.

CSO41542-9171

 

ONCOLGCY CR

FAX NO. 7250097

P-2

P, 01

Ja1wiry 8, 2001

Jacksonville

_-

Hospitirl  
Chiltls St.
FI 

MwaI 
2080 
Jacb:sonvilIc, 
A1 
in:
(FZlX

I 32214-5000
Xlcalth 

l3cncfils Advisor

On 
wo 

Jm~~ry 4, 200
reviewed his 

cviIIUation and work up to dntc.

was seen in continuer! follow-up at which 

lime,

,Borigirmlly 

ymcnled to 
OII both sides of his 
JGvcrs, etc. A 

JyfUJdI 
nodes 
wejght loss, 
inili:tlly, 
exnminalion  of his tonsils.

the patient was 

the Navy physicians in 
xc-k. He had not experienced any 

Janwry 1999 with 

cnlargcd

pruritis,
perrormed in January 1999, and

sigfiificdnt 

bilateral tonsillectomy was 

not told of any malignant diagnosis as a result of 

the pathological

August of 2000, he was told 

Imtcr, in 
specimens did 
jyn~ph~~~a. primarily on 

indeed show evidence  of 
malierl~&~.~pf!o_~~, 
P 

that the pathology report on  

the 
&ffusc 
lclt tonsil with the right tonsil being negative.

t/x 

tonsjllcctomy
‘@o~&&x!!,

shaw~~l 

patient was originally 

I:oHium 
neck and 
Ihat he had 

I’hc 
nxtwt;rticlstagin~ 
and biopsy, which was 
which 
no focal 
my 
lympholaa. A 
right 
&lo of 
rho 
dcml 
p~~oblc~ns 
were done, which 
pelvis, which showed a small 
also no 
cnlargcd 
A 
inttaccrebrnl, cranial, or 
CC

signilicaully 

C’T scan of 

were 

the 

see11 by 

rnc on 

evaluation was undertaken. 
neg~ive for evidence 
areas of 

hypcrmotabolic activity, 

Scpte.mber  

20,2000, 

at which 

lime a complete
‘i’his included a bone marrow aspiration,
oflymphoma; a 

whole body 

Pet scan

also 

scan WGS 
jaw, which, according  to 
cxpcricncing. A 

done which showed 
patient 
smogram 

the 
liver 

t>ecn 

ncgativc. 

The patient had a CT scan of 
bleb in the right lower lung felt 
mcdinstinal 
abdorninsl or pelvic 

of

compatible  with no evidence 
some activity 
along 
the
corr&sponded  with 
some
sonogram
ihc chest, abdomen and
not to be 
malignanl, and
lymph nodes were noted.

spltm 

aud 

hcxd and neck were done which also showed no 

evidence of any

wvical abnormalities. 
Jwhnmvik  
aL 

h’~dogy  

‘l’hc 
.~thck%ntivi~~c  

~hwr  

&llcr

paticnr was found to have 

6omc 

very

Jan 

Zti 01
’ JAN-  

 

02:52p
1 O-2001 WED 03

MANRGED  CRRE NH JAX FL

.

(!3041542-9171

 

: 57 PM JACKSONVILLE ONCOLOGY CR

FAX NO, 7250097

P-3

P, 02

lytq~h 

small 
small polyp in the 
n 

nodes in 

lefi maxillary sinus.

the neck 

bilater&lly,  none of which were pathologic. 

There was 

also

summat 

Jn 
msidllall’.cr~~~~_n~~~~t~tic  

a.1 this time, it 

nppcars that 

Lasbaun 
?o,n-Hod&in’s 

y, 

1,cachman has 
i.,gpl~,o~~~

t~o_ovi.de~~c 

ofany

f)aLient has also  

‘I‘hc 
conw&:dion and 
this 

poii,t.

advice 

seen

of the radiation  
regsrding the’ role of radiation 

dcpartmcnt 

thera.py 
therapy and/or 

chernochcrapy 

&

for a

that most patients  with his 

the 

explained to 

palicnl 
of 

It was 
radiation or combination radiation and 
is 
PS to 
uuclcar 
paticnl’s 
cliannoris.  Additionally, it would appear 
f!l\!n!.~c~_~!!!.o~:th~_~~jl~~~~~! with Non-Hodgkin ’s 
rclrosprct al the 

radiation and/or 

ordiagnosis  

the role 

Stage 

time 

a 

1.

chemotherapy  within 

chemotherapy  at this 

weeks 
late 
patient had 

the diagnosis. It
ancr 
dart 
at’ler 
~A~I~I~
thal the 
I.ymphoma and evidently 

was in

the

diseasc arc given 

citbcr

was 
some 

prcscntcd  to the tumor board and 
\he 
bcoefit from administering radiation 

However, this would bc equivocal.

trC!atJllent  at  this time, but 
rec.onwnc.rrcll\ticrn  of having very close follow up and certainly if 

proceed  with any 

additionn.l  

 This wns discussed with the patient
wiil 

evidcncc 
t\rc 

ofrmurrcnt or 
WC of 

persistent 
radiatim and/or 

lymphomR  
chcntotherapy.

lhcn at 

cssc 
dcrivc 

‘1’1~ patient’s 
patic.nL may 
date 
decided not 
the. 
dcvclop 
scrir?usly consider 

any 

to 

Sincerclv.

rite

consensus was that 
therapy even at this late
and he 
 
haa
alma with
when he does
that time, we would

and 

co