D E P A R T M E N T  O F  T H E  N A V Y  
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 

2 N A W  ANNEX 

WASHINGTON DC  20370-5100 

JRE 
Docket No:  1067-98 
1 June  1999 

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  6 May  1999.  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 the advisory 
opinion furnished by  a designee of the Specialty Advisor for Psychiatry  dated 24 February 
1999, a copy of  which  is attached, and  your rebuttal thereto. 

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. The Board concluded that in  the absence of  evidence which 
demonstrates that you  were unfit by  reason  of  physical disability in  1976 because of  a mental 
disorder which  was  incurred  in  or aggravated by  your naval  service, and  ratable at or above 
30% disabling, there is no basis for granting your request.  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  error or 
injustice. 

Sincerely, 

W. DEAN PFEIFFER 
Executive Director 

Enclosure 

NAVAL MEDICAL CENTER 

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHIATRY 
PORTSMOUTH, VA  2 3 7 0 8 - 2 1 9 7  

6 5 2 0  
0 5 0 6 - 5 - 6 0 6 4  
2 4   Feb 9 9  

From :  Case Reviewer 
To : 

Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records, 
Department of the Navy, Washington, DC  2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0  

Subj :  REQUES 
FORMER 

THE CASE OF 

Ref: 

(a)  YOU;  ltr dtd 2 6   Mar 9 8 ,   # 1 0 6 7 - 9 8  

Encl : 

(1)  BCNRFile 
(2)  Service Record 
(3)  VA Record 

1.  Pursuant to reference  (a) a review of enclosures  (1) through 
( 3 )  was conducted to form opinions about whether Subject 
Petitioner should have been referred to medical and physical 
evaluation boards prior to his discharge for..,.evaluation of an 
Axis I mental disorder and his fitness for duty.  Because the 
facts of the case are summarized in reference (a), I will proceed 
to the psychiatric data. 

2 .   In Jan 7 5   Subject was diagnosed with Situational Depressive 
Reaction.  This diagnosis does not exist in the current 
psychiatric nomenclature.  As our understanding of psychiatry has 
changed over the years, the nomenclature has been revised to 
reflect that understanding.  But contrary to Subject's civilian 
psychiatry opinion, that the current nomenclature does not 
include a previously recognized diagnosis does not mean that we 
cannot understand what a psychiatrist in an earlier time was 
trying to convey.  Situational Depressive Reaction is still a 
recognized diagnosis in the International Classification of 
Diseases, and its code number corresponds to Adjustment Disorder 
with Depressed Mood in DSM-IV.  It is my opinion that the 
psychiatrist in 1 9 7 5   was trying to convey that Subject was 
experiencing a relatively minor episode of depression brought 
about by stressors or situations in his life.  The psychiatrist 
substantiated his diagnosis by listing the stressors associated 
with the Situational Reaction.  The psychiatrist's note did not 
document a more serious depressive condition, such as Major 
Depression, which would have required treatment with medication 
or even hospitalization.  This situational variety of depressed 
iiiv,J  would be cqxcrted to resolve when the l e v c l  of stre:;:? which 
brought it on was lowered.  It is not considered an unfitting 

THE CASE OF 

condition, and it is not considered to be a prodrome to a more 
serious depression, such as Major Depression or Bipolar Disorder. 

3 .   If this situational depressed mood had been more serious and 
if  it had represented an unfitting condition, one would expect to 
find evidence that it rendered Subject unfit to perform his 
duties.  There is, however, no such evidence.  The service record 
and the medical record fail to show that depression prevented him 
from performing in the Marine Corps.  After discharge the 
evidence shows that he was consistently employed for years. 
Although the civilian psychiatry opinion includes Subject's 
report that he had frequent depressed moods, the documentation 
shows that psychiatric care was not required until almost ten 
years after discharge.  Further, the VA psychiatrist, who saw 
Subject after the civilian opinion, noted only mild depression 
and that Subject did not require antidepressant medication at 
that time.  It is my opinion that this history supports that the 
condition diagnosed while Subject was on active duty was not an 
unfitting condition. 

4.  While there is no evidence that an Axis I psychiatric 
condition rendered Subject unfit for duty, there is adequate 
evidence that a personality disorder rendered him unsuitable. 
Besides the psychiatric report of Jan 75, that evidence is best 
found in three personal observation reports in Subject's service 
record from his'second Lieutenant, Master Sergeant and Staff 
Sergeant.  Those reports describe Subject's poor attitude, 
unwillingness to learn and accept guidance, and his "acute 
determination to get out of the United States Marine Corps at any 
and all costs."  These reports show that Subject's motivation to 
leave the Marine Corps was voluntary and not the result of an 
involuntary, unfitting condition.  The reports are consistent 
with a diagnosis of personality disorder. 

5.  Recommendation:  The documents submitted for review do not 
provide evidence to warrant a correction of the naval records. 
No evidence was found that would have justified referring Subject 
to a Physical Evaluation Board prior to his discharge.  The 
available psychiatric data from the period of active duty does 
not represent an unfitting condition.  Subject's current 
psychiatric condition is separate from and not related to his 
psychiatric condition on active duty.  He was appropriately 
discharged on the basis on unsuitability.