DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

JRE
Docket No: 7101-00
19 June 2001 ra

 

Til adnensamnnanel

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 7 June 2001. 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 designees of the Specialty Leader for Psychiatry dated 26 January 2001,
a copy of which is attached, and your rebuttal thereto.

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. It concluded that you were aware of the
alleged error or injustice in your record when you were discharged by reason of a personality
disorder on 14 September 1990. The Board also concluded that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. In this
connection, it substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion.

The Board noted that your enlistment in the Navy was fraudulent, in that you concealed
significant aspects of your prior Army service when you applied for enlistment in the Navy.
You completed a DD Form 1966/4 on or about 30 August 1988, in which you stated that
",..After about two months in training my knee was hurt and they were going to start me
over or I could get out of the Army on 17 August 1987 was seperarated [sic] from the
Army." On 19 September 1988 you completed a Standard Form 93, Report of Medical
History, as part of your pre-enlistment physical examination. You denied a history of
attempted suicide, nervous trouble of any sort, depression or excessive worry, trouble
sleeping, treatment for a mental disorder, and being a patient in any type of hospital. Your
Army records present a very different picture. They indicate that you served in the Army
from 1 July to 17 August 1987, when you were discharged for unsatisfactory entry level
performance and conduct. You were hospitalized at an Army community hospital at Ft.
Leonard Wood, Missouri, for psychiatric observation during the 25 July-4 August 1987
period following a self-reported suicide attempt. You claimed to be increasingly depressed
and unable to handle the stress of training, as well as having difficulty sleeping. You
disclosed that you had "been seen", presumably for psychiatric treatment, when you were 16
years of age because of threats of suicide, and that you refused to be seen as an outpatient
for follow-up treatment. You were released from the Army hospital after several days, but
almost immediately thereafter took, or possibly pretended to take, an overdose of
medication, which resulted in emergency medical treatment and re-admission to the hospital
for further observation. In the opinion of the psychiatrist who examined you prior to your
final release from the Army hospital, you were not suicidal, but were merely being
manipulative. Your behavior was described as passive-aggressive. You were given a
diagnosis of "Occupational problem". In addition to the foregoing, the Board noted you
apparently attempted to conceal your Army medical history from the Board, as you failed to
list your Army service on the Board’s supplemental information sheet you completed on 15
October 2000. '

The Board concluded that exact nature of your mental disorder, if any, cannot be determined
with certainty. It noted that diagnoses of mental disorders are based, in large part, on
information disclosed by the person being evaluated. Given your history of manipulative
behavior, and your failing to disclose and/or lying about pertinent mental health history in
order to procure enlistments in the Army and the Navy, the Board was unable to accept your
representations concerning your symptoms and mental health history as true. It concluded
that any diagnosis based on your representations is suspect. The Board further concluded
that irrespective of the diagnosis applied to your mental disorder, it is unlikely to have been
incurred when you were entitled to basic pay and rendered you unfit for duty prior to your
discharge, which are pre-requisites to disability separation or retirement.from the Armed
Forces. The Board also noted that the VA psychiatrist who was instrumental in your
receiving disability benefits from the VA for your putative mental disorder, indicated on 29
October 1997 that the disorder was "a progression of his service-connected [sic] personality
disorder." As you know, the personality disorder was not "service connected", as that term
is used by the VA. It is notable that during the course of the evaluation conducted by that
psychiatrist, you did not disclose your period of Army service, and denied "...inpatient
psychiatric care or any prior history of suicide attempt."

The Board was not persuaded that conditions of your skin or back rendered you unfit for
duty at the time of your separation from the Navy, or that the conditions should have been
evaluated by a medical board prior to your separation.

The Board noted that the VA is permitted to rate any condition which was incurred in,
aggravated by, or, as in your case, merely traceable to a period of military service, without
regard to the issue of fitness for military service at the time of separation from the service.
In addition, the VA may raise or lower disability ratings throughout a veteran’s life time, as
the severity of the condition changes, and it may add new or derivative diagnoses and grant
service connection at any time. Unlike the VA, the military departments may rate only those
conditions which render a service member unfit for duty at the time of separation or
permanent retirement. Disability ratings may not be raised, lowered or otherwise amended
thereafter, absent evidence of material error or injustice, and action by the Board.

The Board was not persuaded that the administrative discharge processing which

took place during your second enlistment resulted in material error or injustice. Although
you indicated that you wanted to submit a statement in your own behalf, and may not have
been given the opportunity to do so, or perhaps opted not to do so, your statement is not
extant. You have not demonstrated that you would have been retained on active duty had the
statement been submitted to, and considered by, the discharge authority, or that you would
have been referred for disability evaluation processing in lieu of administrative separation
because of a personality disorder.

In view of the foregoing, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the
members of the panel will be furnished upon request. 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 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
DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHIATRY
NAVAL MEDICAL CENTER
PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA 23708-2197

6520
0506:CC-0065
26 JAN O01

From: Case Reviewers
To: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records,
Department of the Navy, Washington, D.C. 20370-2197

Subj: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN CASE OF

Ref: (a) Your ltr dated 04 DEC 00, 7101-00

Encl: (1) BCNR file
(2) Service Record/Medical Records
(3) VA Records/Medical Records

1. Pursuant to reference (a) a review of enclosures (1) through
(3) was conducted to form opinions about subject petitioner's
claim that his delusional disorder existed at the time of his
active duty service.

2. Facts of the Case:

(a) The petitioner was first seen on 04 June 1990, by “ii.
elie a licensed clinical psychologist. At that time he had
homicidal ideation toward other command members. @@giiijitiees
initial report indicated "no overt signs of psychosis," and that
the petitioner "denied hallucinations or delusions." No formal
diagnosis was given at that evaluation.

(b) The petitioner was seen again by aR on 26 June
1990. Ee evaluation stated that the petitioner

indicated "concern about racial prejudice in Ene command but was
unable to specify who the problem people are. In this
evaluation, @RMMM also noted that the uehaldecs was
"extremely immature and impulsive," and again "denied
hallucinations or delusions."

(c) The petitioner underwent a Minnesota Multiphasic Inventory
(MMPI) which is a psychological test designed to screen for
various mental illnesses and personality disorders. Results were

interpreted by MMmR@MMMMMM on 28 June 1990. The test was
reportedly valid and described a person who was "self centered
and infantile..(and) demands a great deal of attention and becomes
resentful and hostile when their demands are not met. They are
SUBJ: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATIONS IN CASE OF

   

vague, evasive and denying when talking about their
difficulties."

(d) As a result of the aforementioned evaluations, @igMiageciligg
established the diagnosis of Personality Disorder, Not Otherwise
Specified with Borderline and Antisocial Features on 28 June
1990. He recommended an expeditious administrative separation on
the basis of this Personality Disorder. The petitioner was seen
again on 06 and 09 September 1990. The diagnosis and
recommendations remained unchanged on those subsequent
evaluations.

(e) On 11 December 1997, the petitioner was seen by a VA
psychiatrist who noted that the petitioner "constantly feels that
Germans are conspiring against him," and "he could not even step
out of the house and always stayed at home with the curtains
closed." The evaluation further noted "multiple delusions of
persecution and ideas of reference." The diagnosis of Delusional
Disorder, Paranoid Type, was thus established at this evaluation.

3. The following opinions are submitted:

(a) It is accepted that the petitioner has been diagnosed with
Delusional Disorder, Paranoid Type and that currently his
condition is disabling to some degree.

(b) No direct evidence was offered to establish that the
petitioner suffered from a Delusional Disorder while in the Navy.
According to the Psychiatric Diagnostic and Statistics Manual,
4™° Edition (DSM-IV), "non-bizarre delusions" must be present to
meet criteria for the diagnosis of Delusional Disorder. The
petitioner's psychological evaluations consistently reported that
no delusions were present. In fact, the only evidence that the
petitioner has offered was that the VA allowed his claim. It is
felt that evidence to establish a service connection does not
exist because the petitioner's disabling condition was not
incurred in or caused by a period of active military service.

(c) There was indirect evidence suggesting that the petitioner
may have been paranoid (e.g. his concerns about racial
prejudice); however, the written psychological evaluation and the
MMPI presented no evidence that his concerns about racial
prejudice at his command were delusional beliefs. People with
Personality Disorders sometimes may go on to develop psychiatric
conditions, such as Delusional Disorder. 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.

4. Recommendation:

Review of the evidence does not argue for correction of the
Naval record.