DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No: 8619-01
14 January 2002
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To:
Secretary of the Navy
Subj
:
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD
Ref:
(a) 10 U.S.C. 1552
Encl:
(1) DD Form 149 w/attachments
(2) LT K. Wever ltr
(3) Partial naval record
20/4866, 3 Jan 02
1.
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner,
filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that her naval record be corrected to
show that she was not released from active duty on 27 October 2001, and that she be
accorded necessary medical evaluation and treatment for abnormalities noted in a pathology
report dated 5 November 200 1.
2. The Board, consisting of Ms. Moidel, Dr. Schultz and Mr. Bishop, reviewed Petitioner
allegations of error and injustice on 10 January 2002 and, pursuant to its regulations,
determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available
evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the
enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
’s
3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner
of error and injustice finds as follows:
’s allegations
a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies
available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy.
b. Enclosure (1) was filed in a timely manner.
C.
Petitioner underwent a pre-release from active duty physical examination on or about
13 October 2001, and was found physically qualified for release from active duty. Item 41
of the Report of Examination, Pelvic, is marked
released from active duty on 27 October 2001.
indicates that the results of a Pap smear taken on 10 October 2001 showed a high grade
intra-epithelial lesion.
“NE”, for “not evaluated”. She was
A pathology report dated 5 November 2001
d.
In correspondence attached as enclosure
(2), the Board was advised by a Navy staff
obstetrician/gynecologist, in effect, that a high grade lesion of the cervix, based on proven
biopsy and not the screening Pap smear, can progress to cancer approximately 15 % of the
time. Once a lesion is determined to be carcinoma in situ, which is one step beyond a high
lo- 15 years to progress to invasive cervical cancer.
grade lesion, it generally takes
opinion, Petitioner certainly needs gynecologic follow-up, to include colposcopy and
colposcopically directed cervical biopsies.
colposcopic follow-up for an extended period of time.
believe that Petitioner should be
results.
which would not compromise her outcome or prognosis; however, it may be prudent to
simply allow her initial gynecologic evaluation, to include colposcopy and perhaps treatment,
within the Navy system, followed by referral to the VA system for treatment and continued
close follow-up. If this could be done without
“denying her discharge from the military
service [this] would be ideal.
In addition, she may need further treatment and
The author of the enclosure did not
In her opinion, it would be reasonable that Petitioner be followed in the VA system,
“denied discharge ” from the Navy based on her Pap smear
In her
”
CONCLUSION:
(2), the Board concludes that had the results of Petitioner
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record and notwithstanding the
comments contained in enclosure
Pap smear been available prior to her release from active duty, her enlistment would have
been extended, with her consent, for follow-up of the abnormal results.
results of a cervical biopsy are more accurate than those obtained from evaluation of a Pap
smear, which is a screening test, it would be in the interest of justice to set-aside her release
from active duty, and accord her definitive medical evaluation and treatment within the Navy
medical system.
It noted that as the
’s
In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the
following corrective action.
RECOMMENDATION:
a. That Petitioner ’s naval record be corrected to show that she was not released from
active duty on 27 October 2001, and that she was retained on active duty, with her consent,
for medical follow-up and possible treatment of the abnormalities noted on the cervical
pathology report dated 5 November 2001.
b. That a copy of this Report of Proceedings be filed in Petitioner
’s naval record.
It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board
4.
the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board ’s proceedings in the above entitled
matter.
’s review and deliberations, and that
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Recorder
5. The foregoing report of the Board is submitted for your review and action.
Reviewed and approved:
I
Executive
Direct0
LYiVCH
JOSEF%
Assistant General Counsel
G.
(Manpower And Reserve Affairs)
APR
2 4
ZGG2
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075973C070403
Information contained in files maintained by the Army Review Boards Agency indicates that the Board received part of this same application, including the Department of Defense Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record Under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552) and her self-authored statement (both of which are dated 14 March 2002), on 21 March 2002. One of her sessions, on 30 September 1993, may have occurred on a day when the applicant was in an active duty...
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01714
The Informal PEB adjudicated “female pelvic pain,” rated 10%and reduced to 0% for noncompliance using the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD).The dysmenorrhea and dyspareunia conditions were determined to be related CategoryIIdiagnoses, those that contribute to the unfitting condition. The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01336
On 17 February 2004, an entry on the applicant’s health record indicates in February 2003, the applicant had an abnormal PAP which was followed by a colposcopy and cryosurgery in October 2003. The Medical Consultant indicates that the applicant concealed a medical condition that is disqualifying for enlistment at the time of entry that was discovered approximately one week after entering active duty. We believe the applicant’s explanation and supporting statement from her mother of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005619
She states she was more than willing to take another Pap smear after the administrative board was completed because she had been medically and educationally counseled as to what a Pap smear was and what it entailed. A Minority Report from a member of the board, dated 23 March 2007, addressed to the separation authority stated that based on the facts and evidence in the case the applicant should not be separated. The discharge authority stated that he determined the applicant did not...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-00814
The PEB adjudicated the fibromyalgia condition, which included atypical chest pain, as unfitting, rated 20% with application of the Veteran’s Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). Fibromyalgia Condition. A 40% rating, the maximum rating available under this code, is warranted when fibromyalgia is constant, or nearly so, and refractory to therapy.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001053950C070420
The applicant requests that his medical records be corrected to show he had cancer prior to his retirement and that his retirement for length of service be changed to a medical retirement. He had the cancer prior to his retirement but it was misdiagnosed as hemorrhoids. OTSG opined that the applicant’s rectal carcinoma was most probably present at the time of his retirement physical examination in January 1998.
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900043
Receiving an erroneous entry narrative reason does not place or indicate any blame on the Applicant’s behalf.The Applicant’s statement she was healthy when she enlisted into the Navy as evidenced by a pap smear done in May 2005, a year earlier, is contradicted by the medical records which indicate she had an abnormal pap smear 8 May 2006 (within 7 days of commencing active duty). Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found ADDENDUM: Information...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070007362
The applicant states "I did not refuse to get a Pap smear. I was given permission by the local military doctor to get a civilian pap smear, but my commander refused to allow me to do that." The military medical physician and the CSM discussed the applicant's continued refusal to take the Pap smear and the CSM addressed dealing with the matter at the unit.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05898-00
(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. case if the PEB had evaluated this member, she would have been found fit for continued active duty service. from active...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00232
The PEB found the LBP and neck pain conditions unfitting, and rated those 10% each. Pre-Sep | |Flexion (90⁰ is |90⁰ | |normal) | | |Combined (240⁰ is |225⁰ | |normal) | | |§4.71a Rating |10% | |Comments |No mention of pain | | |with ROM | The Army PEB and the VA both rated her back pain condition at 10%. The PEB rated her neck pain at 10%.