DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 

NAVY 

ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

JRE
Docket No: 3998-01
5 February 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, considered your application on 25 January 2002. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures
applicable to the proceedings of this Board.
consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your
naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.

Documentary material considered by the Board

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 substantially concurred with the rationale of the
hearing panel of the Physical Evaluation Board which considered your case on 29 November
1995, a copy of which is attached. Accordingly, 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

Enclosure

SAN DIEGO HEARING PANEL RATIONALE

A medical board met at Naval Hospital, Pensacola, FL
on 20 April  

1995, with a diagnosis of:

1.

SCHIZOPHRENIFORN DISORDER, 29540

The Record  
Code 
10% 

9299-9210  on  
disability and separation with severance pay

26 September

  1995 and rated his condition at

.

Review.;Panel  found the member unfit for duty under VA

This member appeared before the Panel on 29 November 1995
requesting to be found fit for duty.

Additional accepted documentary evidence consisted of:

Addendum to Exhibit A
Exhibits 
B through K  

- Nonmedical evidence

learnin'g  

 

"a number of

His

schizophreniform  disorder.

Is that his behavior was a manifestation
disabilties  and characterologic problems which led to

The member's contention is that he should be found fit because he
does not and did not suffer from  
Rather, his explanation  
of 
oppositional behavior and a stress management problem.
medical board of 20 April 1995 does document
disciplinary problems which involve altercations with members of
his chain of command and resulted in disciplinary action."
According to the member's testimony,
MAAs, has been grossly disrespectful to superior officers, and
has even gotten Into altercations over how to stack incoming food
the member was asked
supplies to the ship.
very clearly if he understood the Implication of his
the meaning of the word
equivalent to the colloquial term  
that he did, in fact, understand,
counsel.
*crazyR,  but rather that he has a rather severe personality
disorder and learning  
novel and perhaps even a unique approach to the Hearing Panel.

The member answered
"crazyw.
and had discussed this with his

the member contends that he is not

upsychosisW  that is essentially

he has been in fights with

dlsabllltles  (IQ-76).

During the hearing,

This is certainly a

In effect then,

 

request,  and

the second in August of 1995.

A review of the member's record reveals that he has had two
psychiatric hospitalizations.
timeframe, and,
hospitalization was 8 weeks long,
remarkable.
psychiatric staff given two months of inpatient observation,
misdiagnosed his characterologic problems as a psychosis.
However, the medical board of 20 April 1995, done as an
inpatient, documents unequivocally psychotic behavior,

The member asks us to believe that an entire

which In itself  

The first

Is quite

One, in the February-April 1995

and experiences.

The member had rather bizarre

His  thinking was characterized as grandiose Ideation

thinking,
behavior, Including at one time flushing his glasses down the
toilet.
with disorganized speech,
hallucinations.
of these symptoms until they put him on Haldol.
reflects that the member's thinking and behavior improved on
Haldol.

T-he member's response is that he never had any

as well as admitted auditory and visual

The record

  13
’s psychoti

, but does not change his underlying diagnosis

the member's thinking, as reflected by his

The member offers an addendum to the medical board dated
November 1995 that notes a resolution of the member
c
symptoms
At the
Hearing Panel,
testimony, can be characterized as at least rather idiosyncratic,
with expressed ideas about World War II and the cracking of the
Japanese codes,
buff who was simply misunderstood.
frankly grandiose,
idea.
generously described as somewhat tangential and circumstantial.
And the member,
while not frankly paranoid, was certainly
suspicious about his chain of command and their Intentions.

his characterization of himself as a history
are at least   on the level of an overvalued

Furthermore, the organization of his thinking is most

His beliefs, while not

and 

.

does not contend that his problems did not

disabilties  and dysfunctional family and  

The member, then,
happen, rather he insists that the problems can be traced to his
his problem
learning 
controlling his behavior..
member has a personality disorder, and rather limited
intellectual ability, both of which, by  
existed prior to enlistment.
However, neither of these things
required any extensive psychiatric intervention before coming on
active duty.

If we accept this explanation; the

his own testimony,

Is virtually impossible to believe that competent Navy

It 
given 2 months to evaluate this member,
psychiatric authority,
could have made an error about whether he was psychotic or not.
While there may be some
best characterized as schlzophreniform disorder
psychosis 
member was,
rehospitalization in August of 1995,
than simply  

in fact, psychotic.
characterologlc/behavioral  problems.

Further, the member required
which also suggests more

discussion about whether his psychosis is

incontrovertable  that the

vs psychosis NOS,

it seems 

vs brief reactive

 

Is clearly quite enthusiastic and highly motivated to

The member  
remain on active duty.
working hard and doing the best that he can with his available
resources.
unequivocally Incompatible with further military service. To
accept his explanation of these problems would, we feel, unfairly

His life has been characterized by

However, the magnitude of  

his problems are

deny him the benefits of a disability rating that he does, in
fact, deserve.
relevant medical evidence,
continued military service,
under VA Code 9299-9210 at 10% disability.

after careful consideration of all
the Panel finds the member unfit for
and recommends that he be Separated

Therefore,

-,