DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

JRE
Docket No: 
5 February 2001

212-00

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 1 February 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 comments of your counsel.

In this connection, the 

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.
Physical Evaluation Board which considered your case on 29 June 1999, a copy of which is
attached.
In addition, it was unable to conclude that you suffered from the residuals of an
injury which was incurred while you were entitled to basic pay and rendered you unfit by
reason of physical disability. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names
and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

Roard substantially concurred with the rationale of the

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

I-?

-,
.- 

_.

SAN DIEGO FORMAL PEB RATIONALE

TN THE CASE OF

The informal Physical Evaluation Board found the member not
physically qualified for retention in the Naval Reserves on
20 April 1999.

This member appeared before the formal PEB on 29 June 1999
requesting to be found physically qualified for retention in the
Naval Reserves.

Accepted documentary evidence consisted of:

Exhibit A 
Exhibit B 
Exhibit C 
Exhibit D 
Exhibit E 
Exhibit F 
Exhibit G 

- PEB Case File
- Additional Medical Evidence
- Performance Data
- Ltr from
- Ltr from
- Ltr from
- Ltr from Congressman

dtd 05 Mar 99
td 11 Jan 99

Dixon dtd 08 Apr 99

He was hospitalized at Naval Medical
In the

The member was referred for a psychiatric evaluation in August
1998 because of progressively bizarre behavior during annual
active duty for training.
Center, San Diego from 21 August until 27 August 1998.
the evaluating psychiatrist reports some of the
narrative summary,
problems the member had during his three to four days prior to his
admittance to the hospital.
order and had been 
participate in exercises.
standing near explosives,
to sign the chit.
twice while on watch.

He refused to put out a cigarette while
was counseled for this and then refused
He left his post without relief and fell asleep

UA from multiple formations and had refused to

The member had disobeyed a lawful

During the hospitalization,
psychotic disorder not otherwise specified.
discharged back to his reserve unit at NAB Coronado.
was then begun for an evaluation of whether he was physically
BUMED
On 13 November 1998, 
qualified to remain in the reserves.
.-
found the member NPQ.

the member was diagnosed as having a

He was eventually

The process

The member notes that he was on Motrin for a back injury at the
time he was hospitalized.
The member does not actually assert
that he was psychotic secondary to Motrin, but rather he asserts
that he was not psychotic at all.
B, an excerpt from some book on drug therapy that lists the side
effects for Motrin.

These include "psychic disturbances."

The member did submit Exhibit

The member also submitted evaluations by two civilian physicians.
Exhibit D is an evaluation from a psychiatrist done on 5 March
1999 which notes that, at that time, the member was "currently"
showing no evidence of a major psychiatric disorder.

The member

noted that he paid the evaluating psychiatrist $700.
also submitted Exhibit E, an evaluation from a civilian
neurologist from January 1999, who noted-that the member was
mentally competent at that time.
this evaluation from a neurologist as opposed to a psychiatrist,
he responded that the neurologist "knows a lot about the brain."

When the member was asked about

The member

The member and his counsel asserted that the member was more
competent to make a psychiatric diagnosis than Dr.
the senior psychiatrist on the inpatient unit. Dr.
particularly well respected and highly skilled clinician, graduate
of Yale Medical School, who trained in psychiatry at Harvard.
member makes his living selling carpets and linoleum flooring.
When asked why he wanted to stay in the Navy, he responded 
When asked why he was sure he had not
to learn more 
had a psychotic disorder he answered "because this is all new to
me."

corpsman.N

The

"I want

The

In the instant case,

The issue is not whether the member is currently psychotic.
issue is whether the member was psychotic in the summer of 1998
and, thus, at risk of decompensating and becoming psychotic again.
The standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence
two competent Navy psychiatrists
submitted.
found the member to have suffered from a psychotic disorder during
On the
his week long hospitalization during the summer of 1998.
other hand, there is the testimony of the member who is completely
untrained in medicine or psychiatry and who was, by definition,
out of touch with reality at the time of the episode.
also the evidence submitted by two civilian physicians, neither of
whom saw the member until many months after the episode and one of
whom is not even a psychiatrist.

There is

by a much higher standard than mere

Thus, it is apparent that,
preponderance of the evidence,
break in the summer of 1998.
narrative summary,
The member still'
member's ability to carry out his duties.
refuses even to acknowledge that he had a psychotic disorder.
Therefore, after careful consideration of all relevant medical
evidence, the formal board finds the member not physically
qualified to remain in the Naval Reserves.

this very seriously interfered with the

As noted in the history from the

the member did suffer a psychotic