Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01885-00
Original file (01885-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved
DEPARTMENT 

?F THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

..J

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

JRE
Docket No: 1885-00
3 July 

2001

From:
To:

Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
Secretary of the Navy

’ Subj:

FORMER
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD

Ref:

Encl:

(a) 10 U.S.C. 1552

(1) DD Form 149
(2) NCPB ltr 5420 Ser:Ol-09, 14 Feb 01
(3) Subject’s naval record

1. Pursuant. to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner,
filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected to
show that he was retired by reason of physical disability.

2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Bishop, Lightle and Neuschafer, reviewed Petitioner’s
allegations of error and injustice on 14 June 2001 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.

3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner’s allegations
of error and injustice finds as follows:

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 was discharged by reason of physical disability on 30 November 1999,
without entitlement to disability benefits administered by the Department of the Navy. His
disability, social phobia, was classified as existing prior to service 
service. He completed 

In excess of 16 years of active service.

(EPTS), not aggravated by

In correspondence attached as enclosure 

(2), the Director, Naval Council of

d.

Personnel Boards, advised the Board, in effect, that under legislation enacted on 5 October
1999, Petitioner’s condition should have been rated, notwithstanding it EPTE origin, given
the fact that he had completed in excess of 8 years of active duty service. The Director

recommended that a rating of 10% be assigned, barring further documentation indicating that
a higher rating was warranted.

e.

In response to enclosure 

(2), Petitioner submitted a lengthy personal statement

concerning his condition and its effects on his performance of duty and ability to adjust, as
well as medical records which indicate that his social phobia is of more than a mild degree of
severity. Following the completion of its review of the application, the Board was advised
by Petitioner that the Social Security Administration had determined he was unable to engage
in substantially gainful employment, and was therefore disabled under the laws administered
by that activity.

f. The Board noted that disability rating guidance for mental disorders contained in

1850.41>, enclosure 

(9), provides that a 10% rating is appropriate where

SECNAVINST 
there is occupational and social impairment due to mild or transient symptoms which
decrease work efficiency and ability to perform occupational tasks only during periods of
significant stress; or where symptoms are controlled by continuous medication. Generally,
there is adequate job adjustment potential and some instability in social adjustment.
Medication may be required, and there is a possible need for psychotherapy and monitoring
of medication. A 30% rating is appropriate where there is occupational and social
impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability
to perform occupational tasks, due to such symptoms as depressed mood, anxiety,
suspiciousness, panic attacks, chronic sleep impairment and mild memory loss. Generally,
there is job instability and moderately unstable social adjustment. Medication is usually
required, and there is a need for periodic or frequent psychotherapy.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially the information
submitted in response to enclosure 
although not meeting all of the criteria for a 30% rating, was significantly more severe than
indicated by a 10% rating. Accordingly, it finds the existence of an injustice warranting the
following corrective action.

(2), the Board concludes that Petitioner ’s condition,

RECOMMENDATION:

a. That Petitioner ’s naval record be corrected to show that he was not discharged on

30 November 1999.

b. That Petitioner ’s naval record be further corrected to show that on 30 November
1999, while he was 
ent$led to receive basic pay, the Secretary of the Navy found him unfit
to perform the duties of his rank by reason of physical disability due to social phobia, which
was aggravated while Petitioner was entitled to receive basic pay; that the disability is not
due to intentional misconduct or willful neglect, and was not incurred during a period of
unauthorized absence; that Petitioner has completed over eight years of active service; that
the disability is considered to be ratable at 30% in accordance with the Standard Schedule for
Rating Disabilities in use by the Department of Veterans Affairs at the time the Secretary

found Petitioner unfit, Code Number 9499-9403; and that accepted medical principles
indicate the disability may be of a permanent nature, accordingly, the Secretary placed
Petitioner’s name on the Temporary Disability Retired List effective 1 December 1999
pursuant to 10 U.S. Code 1202.

C. That Petitioner be afforded a periodic physical examination as soon as practicable.

Current address: 75 Francis Avenue, Sloan, NY 14212

d. That a copy of this Report of Proceedings be filed in Petitioner ’s naval record.

4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(c)) it is certified that a quorum was
present at the Board ’s review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete
record of the Board ’s proceedings in the above entitled matter.

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Recorder

5. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section 6(e) of the revised Procedures
of the Board for correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section
723.6(e)) and having assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby announced that the
foregoing corrective action, taken under the authority of reference (a), has been approved by
the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.



Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00817

    Original file (PD2011-00817.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The CI was on four medications. Although at the time of the NARSUM (4 months prior to separation), a case could be made for a 50% rating for continuous occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity, the record indicated some improvement in functioning proximate to separation and partial remission by the VA C&P after separation exam. RECOMMENDATION : The Board recommends that the CI’s prior determination be modified as follows and that the discharge with...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087718C070212

    Original file (2003087718C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was originally processed through the PDES and placed on the TDRL with a 30% disability rating for a PTSD condition based on an evaluation of a PEB. The medical evidence of record confirms that the applicant displayed the same basic symptoms during his final PEB evaluation in 2002 as he did when he was originally rated and placed on the TDRL in 1998. Thus, his record should be corrected to show his PTSD condition was rated at 30%, rather...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01644

    Original file (PD-2013-01644.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of theVeterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. RECOMMENDATION : The Board recommends that the CI’s prior determination be modified as follows, effective as of the date of her prior medical separation: I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00946

    Original file (PD2010-00946.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, the CI’s PTSD symptoms are very clearly documented by the MEB examiner. The examiner opined that, “although the veteran is exhibiting signs and symptoms of PTSD, he is also and probably more predominantly focused on his physical problems.” The examiner noted generally mild PTSD symptoms except for “significant irritability and/or sleep disturbance. Exhibit C. Department of Veterans' Affairs Treatment Record.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06626-02

    Original file (06626-02.PDF) Auto-classification: Approved

    Although the date of discharge is not shown in available records, Petitioner indicates she was discharged on 30 April 2000. e. In correspondence attached as enclosure (2), the Director, He pointed out that there is a VA Naval Council of Personnel Boards (NCPB) advised the Board, in effect, that the PEB made its findings on 5 January 2000, which was approximately nine months after the 9 April 1999 TDRL examination, rather than one year as claimed by Petitioner. That Petitioner's naval record...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01752

    Original file (PD-2013-01752.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. Over several months she noted improvement with Zoloft, which when discontinued in December1998, she again became depressedand it was reintroduced.In June 1999, she became overwhelmed by a move to a new duty station and...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00611

    Original file (PD2011-00611.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The VA C&P examination completed on the same day as the mental health C&P noted the CI was very reluctant to answer questions. The Board agreed that the symptoms reported on the MEB examination were consistent with a §4.130 rating of 70% (occupational and social impairment, with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood) considering the CI’s poor interpersonal functioning and strong history of suicidal ideation. The VA examiner noted a...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01313

    Original file (PD2012 01313.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Sarcoidosis 2. A 10% disability rating was assigned based on the 9434 code and a“mild social and industrial impairment.”The CI appealed and both a FPEB and USAPDA affirmed the 10% disability rating.In December 2001, the VA determined that both sarcoidosis and depression had EPTS and neither had been aggravated by service. SUBJECT: Department of Defense Physical Disability Board of Review Recommendation for AR20130012146 (PD201201313)I have reviewed the enclosed Department of Defense...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00401

    Original file (PD2009-00401.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    The multiple diagnoses do not impact the rating as all psychiatric symptoms are considered in the CI’s overall mental impairment, and are rated IAW §4.130. The CI’s pre-TDRL functioning is described in three psychiatric evaluations at 15, 13, and 3 months prior to TDRL entry. The TDRL narrative summary (NARSUM), three months prior to exit from TDRL (21 months after TDRL entry) noted the CI’s response to treatment had been characterized by periods of remissions and exacerbations.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00185

    Original file (PD2011-00185.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Informal PEB (IPEB) adjudicated the anxiety condition as unfitting, rated 10% IAW with the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The Medical Evaluation Board assigned a 10% disability rating. The rating agency shall assign an evaluation based on all the evidence of record that bears on occupational and social impairment rather than solely on the examiner’s assessment of the level of disability at the moment of the examination.” Therefore, while a GAF score...