DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2
NAVY
ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No: 293840
9 April 2001
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 29 March 2001. After careful consideration of your
application, the Board concluded that your application was not timely filed, and that it would
not be in the interest of justice to excuse your failure to submit your application in a timely
manner. Although you may not have been aware of the precise diagnosis of your alleged
mental disorder until recently, you knew that you were found fit for separation on 3
November 1958, and that you were released from active duty several days later without
entitlement to disability benefits administered by the Department of the Navy.
In addition to the foregoing, the Board concluded that you failed to submit sufficient relevant
evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice in your naval
record. As indicated above, you were found fit for duty on 3 November 1958. The fact that
your signature does not appear on the report of examination does not vitiate the finding of
fitness, or demonstrate that you did not undergo an examination on that date, as you now
allege. The Board largely rejected the findings and conclusions of the Department
Veterans Affairs (VA) psychiatrist who evaluated you on 25 November 1997, because they
were based in large part on a very limited period of observation, and his acceptance of your
self-serving reports, which were not objectively verified. Additionally, he did not provide a
satisfactory explanation for his acceptance of the findings of the general medical officer who
observed you on 2 May 1958, and assessed your condition as a schizophrenic reaction, rather
than those of the trained psychiatrists who closely observed and evaluated you during the 3 to
17 May 1958 period, and determined that you were suffering from acute situational
maladjustment. The Board also questioned the validity of the psychiatrist’s paradoxical
findings to the effect that you would not have been permitted to complete your enlistment had
you been suffering from a personality disorder, but that your “original and ongoing”
diagnosis of schizophrenia, which is a much more severe condition, did not prevent you from
of
completing your enlistment successfully. The Board concluded that even it were to be
assumed, for the sake of argument, that you did suffer from schizophrenia during your
enlistment, you would not be entitled to disability benefits administered by the Department of
the Navy, because that condition was quiescent at the time of your release from active duty.
Although the VA may award disability benefits for any condition it classifies as “service
connected”, that is, incurred in, aggravated by, or merely traceable to a period of military
service, without regard to the issue of fitness for military duty, the military departments may
award disability benefits only in those cases where the service member has been found unfit
to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating by reason of physical disability.
You have not demonstrated that you were unfit for duty on 7 November 1958.
You may request reconsideration of this decision. Your request must include newly
discovered relevant evidence which was not reasonably available to you when you submitted
your application. The evidence may pertain to the timeliness of your application or to its
merits. Absent such additional evidence, further review of your application is not possible.
It is regretted that a more favorable reply cannot be made.
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Wed Feb 14 13_34_15 CST 2001
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL. He noted that He The Board specifically noted In its review of your application the Board conducted a thorough review of both service and medical records, and the post-service medical records you provided. The Board also could not ignore the multiple notations With regard to your psychiatrist’s opinion that you suffered from PTSD, a paranoid personality disorder and a possible organic brain syndrome, the Board noted that like the other...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Wed Feb 14 14_01_05 CST 2001
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL. He noted that He The Board specifically noted In its review of your application the Board conducted a thorough review of both service and medical records, and the post-service medical records you provided. The Board also could not ignore the multiple notations With regard to your psychiatrist’s opinion that you suffered from PTSD, a paranoid personality disorder and a possible organic brain syndrome, the Board noted that like the other...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02857-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 May 2000. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 1997-115
His diagnoses on discharge were reported as follows: “1. VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On August 18, 1999, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board deny the applicant the requested relief. 1995), indicates that the Commandant’s decision was justified because the applicant “was not treated or rated for [paranoid schizophrenia] while serving on active duty.” The Chief Counsel also stated that the apparent contradiction between the VA’s findings and those of the Coast Guard...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07101-00
The diagnosis of Delusional Disorder, Paranoid Type, was thus established at this evaluation. The petitioner's psychological evaluations consistently reported that no delusions were present. However, this does not SUBJ: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN CASE OF mean the condition was also present at the time they were diagnosed solely as Personality Disorder.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060002334C070205
There is no medical evidence, and the applicant did not provide any, that showed he was medically unfit and required physical disability processing. No medical evidence has been presented by the applicant to demonstrate an injustice in the medical treatment received in service. Consequently, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request to correct his records to show that he was discharged for medical reasons.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01732-02
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, and the record of the two previous reviews of your application by the Board. In addition, the Board considered an advisory opinion furnished by the Director, Naval Council of Personnel Boards dated 1 May 2002, a copy of which is attached. An SNMHAS record entry dated 12 August 1987 indicates...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001055248C070420
The VA’s 12 January 1994 decision to grant service connection for schizophrenia was available for this Board’s original consideration of the case. The staff of the Board is authorized to determine whether or not such evidence had been submitted. The applicant has submitted no evidence to show that he was manifesting symptoms of, had a diagnosis of, or was treated for any physical, mental or psychological condition that would have warranted referral for a medical evaluation.
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500958
ND05-00958 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050516. B_ (Applicant) request the Bad Conduct Discharge be upgraded to a General Discharge due to clemency; along with his psychiatric condition he suffers from Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type; Axis I, 295.34; since military service was responsible for his Bad Conduct Discharge. 706 board.
CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2002-165
If the military judge determines that the member lacks the mental capacity to stand trial, the member may be administratively discharged because of the mental disability. However, the record indicates that, at the time of her discharge in August 1989, the applicant had not complained of or received medication for any psy- chotic symptoms since November 1987. The board’s evaluation states that Applicant was awaiting court martial on charges of arson, cocaine abuse and unauthorized absences...