DEPARTMENTOFTHE NAV
Y
BOARD
FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
JRE
Docket No: 1170-01
24 May 2002
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
1 May 2002. Your allegations of error and injustice
session, considered your application on
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.
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.
The Board found that you served on active duty in the Navy from 16 July 1977 to 23 July
1980, when you were discharged by reason of physical disability due to a drug induced
psychosis, which was incurred as a result of your own misconduct. Available records
indicate that after the resolution of your psychosis during July 1980, you admitted to a long
history of abusing alcohol and illegal drugs, to include marijuana, LSD and PCP, and stated
that you had taken four “hits” of LSD four days prior to your hospitalization. The Board
noted that you were hospitalized at a Veterans Administration (VA) facility from 29 July to
13 August 1980, and that on 19 January 1981, the Veterans Administration (VA) denied your
request for service connection for an acute toxic psychosis.
You apparently did not suffer
from significant symptoms of a mental disorder for years thereafter. On 24 August 1999,
the VA awarded you service connection and a 100% rating for bipolar affective disorder,
12.January 1996, based, in large part, on your denial of a history of drug
effective from
abuse, the fact that you had a negative drug screen during your initial hospitalization at a VA
facility in 1980, and that the symptoms you displayed in 1996 were similar to those you had
in 1980.
In this regard, it notes that you had a clear history of drug
The Board was not persuaded that the diagnosis made in your case by Navy physicians in
1980 was erroneous or unjust.
abuse, and a specific instance of drug abuse which induced a psychotic reaction. The fact
VA facility may be attributable to your lack of
that you had a negative drug screen at a
access to illegal drugs at the time, or to your decision to eschew their use. In addition, the
Board noted that your psychotic
symptoms of a major mental disorder for many years thereafter.
synlptoms had cleared, and you apparently remained free of
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.
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
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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00360-01
evidence in available medical records that you were referred for psychiatric evaluation. On 26 August 1980 the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) denied your request for recharacterization of your discharge. The Board concluded that the foregoing factors and contentions were insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your record of four NJPs and the serious nature of the charges of which you were convicted by civil authorities.
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00579
At the MEB examination on 24 June 2003, 10 months prior to separation, the examiner noted a history of psychotic disorder without further elaboration. The PEB coded the condition 9210 for a non specified psychotic disorder and rated it at 10% for mild impairment treated with medication. The Board noted that the CI was responding well to medications at the time of discharge from the hospital, 9 months prior to separation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008282
In a memorandum for the Commander, Medical Holding Company, dated 11 May 1997 [sic], a Department of the Army Alcohol and Drug Counselor stated that the applicant was initially seen at the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) on 8 August 1997 after being medically referred by the Community Mental Health Services at Fort Gordon, Georgia, and that during his evaluation, the applicant gave information about his history of alcohol use. The counselor stated that due to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072939C070403
Four of the applicant's noncommissioned officer evaluation reports (NCOERs) during the period 1994 - 1997 are available. The VA is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service in awarding a disability rating, only that a medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the applicant was discharged on 2 May...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03165-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 June 2001. Although you were diagnosed a suffering from several mental disorder at that time, the only condition considered disabling was a psychotic disorder, not otherwise specified, which the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) determined existed prior to service (EPTS), and was not service aggravated. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02012-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 October 2002. You were discharged by reason of unsuitability/personality disorder on 19 October 1979. 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.
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...
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00529
In the seven months since the previous C&P exam, the CI had been hospitalized once for command hallucinations and suicidal ideation. Subsequent VA records indicate the CI was hospitalized at least four more times in 2006-2008 with hallucinations and suicidal ideation, with GAFs ranging from 20 to 58. The Board determined, therefore, that none of the stated conditions were subject to Service disability rating.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130005284
While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. On 8 June 2006, the applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against him under the provisions of paragraph 5-17,...