DEPARTMENT’qF 

THi NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL

 

REC-ORDS

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

CRS
Docket No: 3010-00
11 July 2001

_

Your allegations of error and

In addition, the Board considered the advisory
The Board also considered your

Dear
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, 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 11 July 2001.
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of
Board.
your application, together with all material submitted in support
thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations
and policies.
opinion furnished by the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery undated,
a copy of which is attached.
rebuttal statement of 19 December 2000.
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.
concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion.
The Board also concluded that the psychiatric problems from which
you suffered during the period of your service were not
sufficiently mitigating to warrant recharacterization.
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that
You are entitled to have the
favorable action cannot be taken.
Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material
evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board.
In this regard,
presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.

In this connection, the Board substantially

The names and

it is important to keep in mind that a

a

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.

4

Sincerely,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

copy to:

Disabled American Veterans

2

NATIONAL NAVAL MEDICAL CENTER

4
DEPARTMENT OF 
BEHTESDA, MARYLAND 

OUTPATIENT DIVISION

P!3YCEIATRY
20889~5800

MC,USNR
Specialty  Advisor for Psychiatry, Chief 
Hospital, San  Diego, CA 92134-5000
Chairmn,

 Department of Psychiatry, 

NNh4C

BUMED ,  Naval

ON  OFNAVALRECORDS

V ia:
Subj:

C

Ref: (a) 10U.S.C. 1171

(b) Board for Corrections of naval Records letter of 20 June 2000

Service  

Encl: (1) BCNR File
(2) 
Per your request for revie
response to reference 
Review of available Navy medical records revealed:

Records/MedicalRecords
w of the subject

2.

1.

(II),  I have thoroughly revie

’s petition for a correction of his 

wed enclosures (1) and (2).

Navy 

records

 and in

a.

b .

SF 502, Narrative Summary, 
summa+&
 inpatient 
and blood pressure

care  received 
changes

dated  01 

h4AR  1988 fro m Naval Hospital, San Diego, which

fro m  16 FEB 1988 to 03 MAR 1988 for 

in the context of longstanding

difficulties 

acute mental 
w ith poly-substance

ideAion,

chamckrized

The acute onset of 

were documented as

mental status changes 

diff & ies  w ith alcohol abuse.

Symptom onset, which was three days prior to 

 rapid/pressured speech and perceptual disturbances 

admission,
Hewasreportedtohaveeatenandslept

and 
paranoid 
resolved by hospital day three.
coincidedwiththeuseofTHCandamphetamines.  
wellduringhishospitalcourse,withnoevidenceofamajoraffectivedisorderorthought
disorder, per the  record. He received only propranolol, which was tapered, then stopped.
 
ARS  consultation 
 that the patient suffered
TCH abuse. He was diagnosed with
fro m a lcohol and amphetamine dependence and 
amphetamineintoxication(resohred),alcoholdependen~,amphetamineabuse,andcannabis
abuse. He was found  to be 
duty  pending legal intervention. Further
reco mmendations included level III treat
Anonymous, command administered 
appohltments.

ment while on active duty, attendance of Alcoholics

disulfka m  (250  mg PO QD

was also executed, the results of 

fully  fit for 

), and follo

psychiatric

indicatti

wh ich 

w -up 

SF 513, Consultation Sheet, dated 09 JAN 1987 

from@Fle&
in it.i at.ed to rule out “conversion” disorder or reaction 

was 

,

 

Mental

 Health Unit, Naval Station

status

 by

An

The

’
episodes  
revealed a history of t

w it h unclear  precipitating 
stressors.
circu m suibed
monic signs previously diagnosed as a “hypoglyce
occurred

 6 days prior to evaluation.

focal

wo 

 

in  the

 The report
 episodes of

m ic reaction.”

Though he noted no acute

periphe &  hyperauto
wo episodes 
stressors,

 (his) car and a 

w ith 
latter of the t
precipitating 
“w redring
in a “rut” in the 
use at that ti
at 
retadation.”

that time 

 the patient noted that he 
 

“DU I”  

charge

in  SEPT 1986.

was under some financial strain due to

He also noted feeling as though he was
 mo tivation.”

H is level of alcohol

me was one six-pack per week.

USN , along  w ith “fatigue and 
M ental status 
revealed "appropriate" behavior with “no evidence of psychomotor agitation or
pmxsses,

He denied drug abuse.

Furth m rc, there  was no 

cvide m e  of 

(decreaxd)

distuhd

 thought 

examination

 pressured

He was diagnosed with 

speech, cognitive problems, or problems with 
and angry. ”
He was found fully fit for duty, and 
clinic for psychological testing.
patient’s medical record.

judgement.
disorder,

somadz&ion
“fully  responsible for 

 

His mood was described as 
 with a  “rule-out ” for panic disorder.
h$  actions. ”

He was to return to the

“worried

Note:

I was unable to find the results of said testing in the

c .

 WA, was initiated for

patient

 was raised in a mobile, broken home, in

Mental status examinationrevealedthatthepatientwasfully

 complaints when shipboard and in the

 co

dauxl3

Bremeaton.

OCTOBER

 1984 from 
recmren~

Social history revealed that the 

According to the report by
conjunc$ivitis

Since being reassigned to working with computer programs and data, his complaints

SF 5 13. Consultation Sheet. 
 1 
suspected  “hysteria, conversion, malingering ” for 
negative ophthalmologic workup.
the patient reported suffering from 
shipyard.
attenuated
which he endured physical abuse.
alert and oriented, with no clinical evidence of a major affective disorder, thought disorder,
organic brain disease or psychotic process.
significant
1984 reflected a more 
testing, the patient was 
ciemrmined
bemg  likely to possess 
problems, ” a negative self-image, fear of emotional involvement and likely to 
depressive and hysterical features,
(might) be present. ” Furthermore, this 
resistant to change. ”
disorder, with a diagnosis of personality disorder being deferred (though prominent borderline,
schizoid and 
patient was urged to participate in group psychotherapy offered by the evaluator
further

“significant
“display
” where “unusual physical complaints and pervasive apathy

The results of an MMPI given 

The result of this composite 

He was found to be fully 

 features were noted).

recommended.

 follow-up was 

adjustmem

dependem

’s clinic.

 level of psychological maladjustment. According to the
 as 

 was “likely” thought to be  “chronic and
evaluation

 were diagnoses of 

somatization

fit  for duty, and the

No

on 16 OCTOBER
 psychological

d. SF 600, Chronological Record of Medical Care, from USS Enterprise, dated 05 APR 1982, was

sea_”  Per this report

documented results of a psychological evaluation per the request of the ship
evaluation of a  “possible
life at 
examination at the time of
“mildly anxious, frustrated and unhappy with sea duty.
opinion that the 
“tension, stress tends to be expressed in psychosomatic ways.
was 

 was found to be fit for duty.

documemed,

patient

 the 

”

interview  ‘suggested that the patient possessed a personality style in which
” Though no specific diagnosis

’s SMO for further
blems
e patient ’s
mental
patient was described as

coping with military
 status

Furthermore, the evaluator was of the

e. SF 

513,ConsultationShe&,dated16JUN1981fromNRMCBremerton,wasinitiatedfor
ressiveillness."
Accordingto the
reportedproblemsbeginningsix
monthspriortotheevaluationwhen,uponcompletinghisactivetrainingprogram,henoted
intermittentandepisodicanxietycomplaintsandruminativethou~~,acoomp~edbyunfitful
sleepandappetitedisruption.  
tedious,boringandmundaoe,"perthereoord.  
Hewasdesaibedasdeliveringhishistoryina
Thoughhismoodwasnotedasbeing“oneofmild
“mostlucidandcoherentfashioa" 
dis~~ement'withmoodcongnrentaffed,~wasnoevidenceofbipolardisorder,
underlyingthoughtdisorderororganicbraiudy&.mctionatthetimeofevah&on.  His
judgementwasreportedas"excellent."  
withmixede~onalfeatures,remediedwithfl~
of time.
outpatiem
for full duty.

Hewasdiagnosedashavinga"situationaldisturbance
15-30mgQHSforalimitedperiod
patiem  begin 
He was returned

Henotedthathisroutinedutieswerefoundtobe"octremely

It was also requested that the 

 psychotherapy.

f.

SF 513, Consultation Sheet, dated 11 MAY 1982, 
wasmhiatedforfurtherev
According to the report by
movement, reporting that

from  NRMC Branch Clinic, USS 
ty  tolerating life aboard ship.

, USN,

the patient missed a ship ’s

hysical

 tension and emotional pressure ” in

Enuxprise,

sleep  well, irritability and

“get
It was noted that

 off

He provided that the solution would be to 

transfer

hLche!s,

 inability to 

n~ousness
a&  

cxwhmmak  He also complained of 

 with mental confusion,
 to short duty, where he believed that he would be fme.

that 
general 
the ship ” 
one year prior to this evaluation, the patient engendered similar complaints as the ship was
readying for sea
A psychiatric evaluation then was found to be normal. The patient
was also remarkable for seizures as a child and two other such episodes later in life but prior to
enlistment, for which he received medications.
entering the military because they made him 
examination, his mood was 
noted that all of his problems had  “just arisen, ” per record, and that the ship was to blame for
his problems.
At the time of evaluation, the patient had been off of the ship for ten days, and
reported that he felt much improved.
evidence of difficulty in social situations requiring expression of anger, strong needs to be
liked, and an emphasis on conventionality.
He was found to be fully fit for duty.
diagnosis of mixed personality disorder.
determined that, at the time of his offense, he did not suffer from a mental disease or disorder
such that he could not distinguish right from wrong.

An MMPI was given, revealing 

descriied

He discontinued these medications upon

“feel like a zombie. ”

On mental status
 as normal, with an  “appropriately labile ” affect. He

The result of the composite evaluation was a

’s history

“hysteroid”

 traits with

It was also

Review of the service record revealed:
a.

The patient completed basic training and Machinist Mate Class-A school, and Naval Nuclear
Power School, along with Operational Training at SIC Nuclear Submarine Prototype NPTU
(Windsor, CT) before his first assignment aboard the U.S.S. Enterprise (19 DEC 1978 to 01
OCT 1980). This was followed by assignments at SIMA, SD (02 
and aboard the U.S.S. New Jersey (02 DEC 1985 to 25 MAR 1988).
Evaluations from each of the patient
recommendations for retention and advancement until duties aboard the U.S.S. New Jersey
where he received ratings ranging from 1 .O to 3.8.
for use of marijuana, and waived his administrative discharge board in favor of an other than
honorable discharge.
The patient completed the Naval Substance Abuse Prevention Program as provided by the
University of Arizona (06 MAR 1987).
The patient has 
and Good Conduct Award.

’s duty stations ranged from 3.4 to 4.0, with

 Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, the 

received~the

GCT  1980 to 01 DEC 1985)

He was not recommended for 

re-enlistment

Humanitarian

 Service Medal

3.

4.

b.

c.

d.

b.

c.

Review of the VA file revealed:
a.

wed 11 APRIL 2000, was

ya  Bipolar condition ” for which

 acid.

He notes that the patient bad attended school at Western

valproic

interpea-sonal

Letter from the patient ’s treating physician
written indicating that the patient has received a diagnosis of 
he is being treated with 
Illinois University but did not return this past semester.
 settings, and sensitive to authority.
in 
patient had attempted to manage his affective discomfort by abusing substances, noting that his
“avoid(ance) ”
Rating Decision, dated 05 OCT 1998, listing a jurisdiction of 30% for a 
disorder. ”
any documentation available in this file of treatment received at the VA for any mental health
concerns.
Notice of Decision (Fully Favorable), Social 
adjudicated and drafted.
patient ’s leaving the service.

“rapid cycling bipolar
There is no documentation of an evaluation that led to this jurisdiction, nor is there

This document described mental health contacts subsequent to the
 were judged as being moderately limiting.

 may have also precluded more effective coping.

Sea&y

abilities

His 

 Administration, dated 19 AUG 1999, was

He is viewed as being uncomfortable

He notes that it is  “believable ” 

that

 the

4.

Discussion:

a. 

healthonnumerousoazasions,bothbezforeanddtigthe
Thepatientwasevaluatedbymental
timeofthe patient’s 
evaluationsweredderminationsthatthepatientwasfi~forduty,withseveralprovidingclinical
evidcnceof~nicdifficultitswith~stanccmisuseanddinicalandpsychmometricdata

miscondudthatledtohisdischarge.'Iheoutcomesof~~ofthese

 

_. .

. 3
-

.. 

-I

aeverity

 difficulties.

chamctaologic&

The evaluations judged the patient as fully fit for du

suggestive of long-standing 
records reviewed consistent with a condition of such 
his 
judgement such that the patient could not 
adhere to the right.
presence of significant mood or psychotic thought processes occurring outside the context of
substance use.
There was no additional documentation in the 
health facility during his period of active duty.
There 
other than the aforementioned.

were  no  clinical  records of any treatment received at a VA facility available for review

distinguish

b.

C.

patient's medical record of treatment in a mental

There

 is 

no  

documeauation

 in the

 so as to adversely impact upon
from  wrong

and could not

 right 

& d not evidence the

’ ’ 

n  and Recommendations: There is 

5~cterization

 of the patient ’s discharge.

insu&ient

 evidence in the information provided to support