DEPARTMENT OF THE  N A V Y  

B O A R D   F O R   C O R R E C T I O N   O F   NAVAL  R E C O R D S  

2  N A V Y A N N E X  

W A S H I N G T O N   D C   2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0  

JRE 
Docket  No:  1732-02 
20 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 
session,  reconsidered  your application on  18 May  2002, pursuant to the 28 January 2002 
remand order  issued  by  the  Magistrate Judge of  the U.S.  District Court for the District of 
Nevada  (the Court).  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, 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.  It 
should be noted  that  the Director is a senior naval  officer who has cognizance over the 
Physical Evaluation Board  (PEB).  He has a legal and  medical  staff, and  his determinations, 
which  are made  for the Secretary of  the  Navy  in  disability matters, are based  in  part on 
information and  advice provided  by  his professional  staff.  The advisory opinion was 
forwarded to your attorney on  3  May  2002 for his  review  and  comment.  To date, the Board 
has not  received a response from  him.  The Board  also considered  in-patient records of your 
hospitalization at  Naval  Hospital San  Diego during the 20-27 July  1983 period. 

As  a preliminary matter,  the Board  noted  that  although it does not  have subpoena power,  it 
may,  pursuant  to the provisions of  Secretary of  the  Navy  Instruction  5420.193, enclosure (I), 
Section 6a(2),  require a petitioner to provide such  information as it considers essential to a 
complete and  impartial determination of  the  facts and  issues present  in  the case. The Board 
wanted to require you  to provide additional information, such as records of  the evaluation 
and  treatment provided  you  b
M.D., a psychiatrist whom  you  apparently 
saw during June  1987; your high  school  transcript and  your  Social Security earnings record; 
all of  your pre- and  post-service medical  records; and  all  records reviewed  by  the Social 

y

 

Security Administration  when  adjudicating your claim  for disability benefits.  The Board  also 
wanted  to require you  to provide an  affidavit in  which  you  would  describe your pre-service 
development and  what  you  believe to be  the initial onset of  symptoms of  your mental 
disorder,  and  explain the information contained  in paragraphs 2b and 2d  of  the 27 January 
1994 advisory opinion  from  the President,  PEB.  However, due to the fact a member of the 
Board's  staff was advised by  Government counsel  that  the Court would  not  tolerate the delay 
that would  be  necessary  to obtain  this additional information, it had  no alternative but  to 
consider the application  on  the evidence of  record. 

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.  In  this connection, the Board  confirmed its previous findings and conclusions, and 
substantially concurred with  the comments contained  in  the advisory opinion provided by  the 
Director,  Naval  Council of  Personnel Boards. 

The Board  concluded  that  your enlistment in  the Navy  was  fraudulent in  several respects; 
that you  were not  qualified  for enlistment; and  that had  you  given  honest and  truthful 

responses to questions posed  to you  your  during your pre-enlistment processing, you  would - 

not  have been  permitted  to enlist. 

Your enlistment was  fraudulent in  that you  did  not provide accurate information to the 
physician and  other medical  personnel  who conducted  your pre-enlistment physical 
examination.  As  a result,  the physician  was  prevented  from  making an  accurate 
determination of  your  fitness for  military  duty.  In  this regard,  the Board  found that you 
completed a Standard  Form  (SF) 93, Report of  Medical  History,  in  which  you  falsely denied 
all positive medical  history other than  a fractured wrist.  You  specifically denied having a 
history of  any  of  the other sixty-two conditions listed  in  items 9-1 1 of  the SF 93,  or of  a 
suicide attempt, and  you  checked  "No" in  response to the question posed  in  item  20 of  the 
form,  "Have you  ever  had  any  illness or injury other than  those already noted.  (If yes, 
specify when,  where,  and give details)."  Although  the Board  was  not  privy  to all of the 
details of  your pre-service medical history,  it did  not  believe your representation  that you  had 
not  received  any  medical  treatment prior  to service other than  for a broken wrist.  The Board 
also determined that  the information you  proviclc4  in  item  25 concerning your history of 
psychiatric care,  and  use of  drugs,  marijuana and  alcohol, is false.  It noted  that a  Southern 
Nevada Mental  Health  Adult  Services (SNMHAS) agency  medical  record  entry dated 2 
August  1987 indicates that you  had  a history  of  paranoid  schizophrenia.  It does not indicate 
when  you  were given  that diagnosis,  or by  whom.  A University Medical Center of  South 
Nevada Psychiatric Evaluation dated  3 August  1987 indicates that you  had  a history of 
psychiatric problems in  "Kern County"  in  1982; that you  used  to smoke "pot" and take 
"speed",  but  stopped one and  one half  years earlier; that you  had  been  under psychiatric care 
on  an  outpatient basis  with  "psychiatric associates";  and  that you  disclosed a history of  a 
schizotypal personality  disorder. 
psychotic medication) and  lithium  (used  to  treat symptoms of bipolar affective disorder) in 
the past,  and  that  you  had  used  marijuana,  "speed" and  "  'ludes  (quaaludes)" at age  17, 

It also indicates that you  reported  being on Haldol  (an  anti- 

which  was  before you  enlisted in  the Navy.  An  SNMHAS record  entry dated  12 August 
1987 indicates that  you  had  a prior  history of  substance abuse in  "the way  past".  An  entry 
dated  14 August  1987 reveals that  when  you  were about  14 years of  age,  you  tried  to 
suffocate yourself  with  a mattress.  This entry also indicates that you  began  having migraine 
headaches at age  10.  A  Veterans Administration (VA) Form  21-2545 you  completed in  1989 
states you  had  "feelings of  being  self destructive at times"  prior to your  Navy  enlistment. 

The information concerning drug and  alcohol use  in  item  20 of  the SF 93 you  completed on 
3 August  1982 does not  correspond  to  the information contained in  the statement identified as 
plaintiffs exhibit (PE) 8 to  the complaint you  filed with  the Court.  In  the former document, 
you  denied a history of  alcohol  use.  In  the latter, you  disclosed "having a beer a day while a 
senior in  high  school." The Board  rejected  your  statement in  PE 8 to the effect that  the 
information you  provided  on  21  October  1982, while truthful, was  obtained while you  were 
having an  "acute schizophrenic episode", as there is no credible evidence that you  were in  a 
psychotic state on  that date or for  months thereafter.  It also rejected  your statement in  PE 8 
that you  were released  from  the Navy  without any  "guideline", noting  that you  signed an  SF 
88, Report of  Physical Examination, on  14 September  1983, acknowledging that you  had 
been  advised  to  seek follow-up counseling from  the VA,  if necessary. 

  111. 

- m e

 

R.N.,  in  PE  18 
a substance 

The Board  concluded  that  the information pr  t n  I ~ L Y I
is wrong, in  that  she states "at no  time w a
abuse problem".  As  you  know,  she worked  for SNMHAS, and  presumably was aware of 
your  drug abuse history  contained in  the records of  that agency.  In  addition, there is an 
SNMHAS Record  of  Case Supervision dated 2  November  1988, in  which  a supervisor 
queries your case worker  "With his history of  substance abuse what are the implications of 
employment in  night clubs and  life style as a drummer."  The case worker  replied,  in  a 
Progress Review  Note dated  14  November  1988, "Substance abuse and the music industry. 
This can  be a problem  for people and  has been  for  this client in  the past  but  that was before 
he  was  receiving psychotropic meds". 

- You  reported  to him  that  you  had  "cured" your  "schizophrenia".  This is notable, 

The in-patient records obtained by  the staff of  the  Board  contain significant new  evidence to 
support the conclusion that  your  condition pre-dated  your enlistment.  These records indicate 
that  you  were initially evaluated on  20 July  1983, by  a clinical psychologist, rather than- 

because you  had  not  been  given  a psychiatric diagnosis by  any-Navy mental  health 
practitioners as of  that date.  You  also stated that  you  had  undergone a civilian psychological 
consultation because of  "homosexual fears", and  you  described  yourself as a  "loner".  The 
psychologist assigned  tentative diagnoses of  Atypical  Psychosis, 298.90, and Schizotypal 
Personality, 301.27,  and  recommended  that  you  be  considered  for hospitalization.  You  were 
admitted to a hospital on  20 July  1983 with  a diagnosis of  Brief  Reactive Psychosis; 
thereafter,  you  disclosed to-in 
elsewhere in  your  record, a history of  migraine headaches,  and  stated that you  had  to take 
"remedial reading"  for possible dyslexia while in  recruit training.  The latter information is 
significant, especially when  viewed  in  conjunction with  the low  score you  achieved on  the 

addition to  the psychiatric symptoms detailed 

Armed  Forces  Qualification Test  you  took  prior  to your enlistment.  Your mother has 
indicated  that  you  are very  intelligent.  If  that assertion  is true,  your low  AFQT, and  need 
for  remedial reading,  may  indicate a significant pre-service decline in  mental functioning. 
You  also admitted to -hat 
you  had  stopped using drugs two and one half years 
earlier,  and  that  you  had  a prior  history  of  use of  marijuana and excessive use of alcohol. 
Later in  your  hospitalization you  admitted to a psychiatric  technician  that you  occasionally 
used  alcoholic beverages,  but  denied a history of  drug  use.  You  disclosed to the technician 
that  you  had  a history of  psychiatric treatment at age  14 stemming from your  fear of  being 
homosexual, and  stated  that  "I  used  to be  schizophrenic, but  I worked  on  it."  You  were 
referred  for psycholo  ical  testing, but  the results of  that testing were described as being  of 
"no value".  D d o n f i r m e d  the diagnoses made by  the clinical psychologist, and 
you  were discharged to duty on  27 July  1983.  There is no indication in  available records 
that you  displayed any  symptoms of  a mental  disorder between  that date and  14 September 
1983, when  you  were discharged from  the Navy.  As  you  know, you  underwent a pre- 
separation physical examination on  that  date,  and  were found physically qualified for 
discharge.  No  signs of  a psychotic disorder were noted  by  the physician  who conducted the 
examination. 

The Board  was  not  ~ersuaded that  you  are entitled to  relief  based  on  the opinions of  Drs. 

a

not  a psychiatrist, and  was no longer a 

n

-

 

Dr-is 

opinion is of 

psychiatric resident when  he wrote a statement in  support of  your request.  He did  not  have 
-  - 
the benefit of  reviewing  your in-patient records before rendering his opinion, which  was 
many  years after  you  were discharged, and  we  do not  know with  certainty what  information 
Dr.  T r o v i d e d  him  or what  he  based  his opinion on.  Dr.- 
limited value,  because  he did  not  review  the  in-patient records,  and  he appears to have based 
his opinion based  on  your current  version  of  your pre-service history and development, 
which  the Board  considers to be  false.  The Board  could not accept Dr.- 
statement 
to the effect  that  since the physician  who conducted your  pre-enlistment physical examination 
did  not detect a personality  disorder,  you  could  not  have had  a such a disorder.  The Board 
does not believe that a personality  disorder  is susceptible to diagnosis based  on a brief 
interview by  a general  medical  doctor  and  especially when  the person  being examined is not 
truthful.  The impression  Dr.-creates 
that  your schizophrenia could have been  caused 
by  the stress of  recruit  training is without scientific support.  His failure to note that a 
schizotypal personality disorder  is of  one of  the  three personality disorders often associated 
with psychotic episodes is telling.  He also failed  to  note that a personality disorder may  not 
have its onset until  early  adulthood, or come to  clinical attention until  late in  life.  He did not 
explain that a personality disorder  niay  be  associated or coexist with, and/or develop into, a 
psychotic disorder. 
review  of all pertinent medical  records,  or evaluate the information noted above concerning 
your pre-service  history  of  drug abuse,  symptoms of  a mental disorder,  and withholding of 
pertinent  medical history  when  applying for enlistment.  The Board  noted  that the diagnoses 
you  were given  in  1983 by  a clinical psychologist and  D r . W w e r e  confirmed by 
observations and  evaluations conducted  over a 7 day  period  of  hospitalization.  It believes 
that  the findings made  in  1983 are entitled  to  substantially  more weight than  Dr. 

not examine you, conduct a critical 

It  is  significant that  Dr. -did 

It appears that  ~r.-ole 
you  were unfit for duty because of  a  mental  disorder which  was  incurred in  or aggravated by 
your  naval  service. 

function in  this case was  to support your contention that 

The Board  noted  that even  if  it were to determine that  your condition was  incurred in  or 
aggravated  by  your  service,  you  would  not  be entitled  to the corrective action you  are 
seeking.  Your condition did  not  meet  the diagnostic criteria  for a diagnosis of  schizophrenia 
at the time of  your discharge,  because you  did  not  have  symptoms of  that disorder for a 
period  of  six  months, as is required. 
during the 27 July  through  14 September  1983 period,  after  you  were released  from the 
hospital, despite the fact that you  were not  receiving any  treatment or taking any 
psychotropic medications, and  it would  not  have been  ratable at 30% or higher,  which  is the 
minimum  rating necessary  to qualify for disability retirement.  The Board  concluded that if 
the symptoms you  complained of  during  your  first ninety  days of  service had  been  classified 
at that  time as the prodromal manifestations of  a schizophrenic process,  as Dr.- 
alleges they  were,  you  would  have been  discharged  for failing to  meet the minimum physical 
standards for enlistment, and  not  accorded any  Navy  disability benefits. 

In  addition, your condition was apparently quiescent 

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  are entitled to have the Board 
reconsider its decision  upon  submission of  new  and  material evidence or other matter not 
In  this regard,  it is important to keep in  mind  that a 
previously  considered by  the Board. 
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  irijiktice. 

Sincerely, 

W.  DEAN PFEIFFER 
Executive Director 

Enclosure 

DEPARTMENT  OF THE  NAVY 

NAVAL  C O U N C I L   O F   P E R S O N N E L   BOARDS 

7 2 0   K E N N O N   S T R E E T   SE  S T E   3 0 9  

W A S H I N G T O N   NAVY  YARD  D C   2 0 3 7 4 - 5 0 2 3  

IN REPLY REFER TO 

5220 
Ser: 02-05 
1 May  0 2  

From : 
To : 

Director, Naval Council of Personnel Boards 
Executive Director, Board for Corrections of Naval 
Records 

Subj : 

- 

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE CASE 
OF FORMER 9 

Ref: 

(a) Your ltr JR:jdh Docket No: 1732-02 of  19 Mar 02 
(b) SECNAVINST 1850.4D 

1.  This letter responds to reference  (a) which requested 
comments and a recommendation regarding Petitioner's 
request for correction of his naval records.  On 14 
September 1983, the Petitioner was discharged from the 
service.  He was discharged with a diagnosis of Schizotypal 
Personality Disorder. 

2 .   The Petitioner's case history, contained in reference 
(a), was thoroughly reviewed in accordance with reference 
(b) and is returned.  The following comments are provided: 

(a)  Member was not unfit due to his subsequently 

diagnosed Schizophrenic Disorder at the time of 
his discharge from the Navy. 

(b)  Even if the member's case had been sent to the 
Physlcal Evaluation Board  (PEB) and the PEB had 
made the determination that the member was unfit, 
his Li/ildition would have b . .  -1 determined to have 
Existed Prior to Enlistment in the service and to 
have been "Not Service Aggravated"  (EPTE, NSA) . 

3 .   In summary, the evidence suggests that the 
manifestations of Subject Name Former Member's clinical 
condition at the time of his discharge from the Navy were 
more consistent with a Schizotypal Personality Disorder 
under stress than a Schizophrenic Disorder, per se, given 
that he appeared to have returned to his pre-service 
baseline of occupational functioning for most of the next 
years.