DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

JRE
Docket No: 5183-99
5 February 2001

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 this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the rationale of 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.
hearing panel of the Physical Evaluation Board which considered your case on 22 October
1998, a copy of which is attached. The fact that you were diagnosed as suffering from post
traumatic stress disorder was not considered probative of error or injustice, because you have
not demonstrated that you were unfit for duty because of that or any other condition at the
time of your discharge. It noted that an individual may suffer from a personality disorder
and post traumatic stress disorder simultaneously. In your case, you were found unsuitable
for military service because of a personality disorder, rather than unfit for duty because of
post traumatic stress disorder. 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 
regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official

In this

Board.

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

, USN,

  NAVMEDCEN, San Diego, California

 

22 October 1998 requesting to be
y

.

__-..

._ 
’

, MSC, USN, dtd 21 

Ott 98

found.the  member fit for duty on

- PEB Case File
- Additional Medical Evidence
- Service
- Memo from
- PRT Folder

A medical board was held at
on 14 January 1998 with diagnoses of:
Chronic Low Back Pain  (7242)
1.
2.
Chronic Neck Pain (7231)
The Record Review Panel 
17 July 1998.
This member appeared before the Panel on
found unfit for duty under VA Code 5025 and 9434, rated at 0% disabilit
and separation with severance pay
Accepted documentary evidence consisted of:
Exhibit A 
Exhibit B
Exhibit C 
Exhibit D
Exhibit E 
A medical board of 8 August 1997 lists diagnoses of low back pain and
whiplash syndrome secondary to two motor vehicle accidents and notes that
litigation was pending at that time.
There is another medical board of
14 January 1998 which lists diagnoses of chronic low back pain and
chronic neck pain.
Since that medical board, -the member has been
involved in another accident, this one while boating.
There are several entries in the PEB case file that are labeled medical
board addenda, but they are not because they have not been vetted through
the chain of command.
Among these "addenda"
staff rheumatologist, dated 
the member meets the criteria for fibromyalgia, but he does not
elucidate.
remuneration",
that she requires an intensive exercise regimen as well as psychological
counseling to continue to provide sub-optimal performance.
question is not whether the member's performance is "sub-optimal", but
rather whether her performance meets required Navy standards.
There is a 31 July 1998 psych "addendum"
that lists three diagnoses.
first is major depression,
little in the way of objective data to support it.
The member also
carries the diagnosis of PTSD apparently secondary to her several motor
vehicles accidents, but this is also rather poorly documented.

He notes that the United States Navy is "getting nominal

is a note from Lieutenan
8/12/98.  Dr. Dema

which is actually poorly documented, and has

whatever that means,

for the member's work.

c, USNR,
believes

He states
However, the

The

The

Enclosure 

(1)

1

!

The

Exhibit C contains performance
The member testified that she had
"get a hold" of that performance

member then has a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder, which is
fairly well documented and certainly explains much of her behavior.
summary of the
"addendum" notes the member to be minimally physically and
psychologically functional,
but again the issue is performance.
The member's performance is reported in the nonmedical assessment dated
25 March 1998, which suggests that the member is performing adequately in
duties consistent with her rank and rate.
evaluations up through July 1997,
which reflect that the member has
always performed at or above standard.
a more recent evaluation covering the last six months and the member's
counsel simply stated that he could not
evaluation without further explanation.
In evaluating any individual,
that the mere presence of a diagnosis is not synonymous with disability.
It must be established that the medical disease or condition underlying
the diagnosis actually interferes significantly with the member's ability
to carry out the duties of her rank and rate.
for evaluating a member's fitness is Navy-wide.
idiosyncratic,
issue is not whether the individual is one hundred percent of some
previous level of performance,
minimum Navy standards of performance.
In the instant case, the member
has had multiple motor vehicle accidents, behavioral problems, and
psychological problems.
However, there were inadequate data offered to
suggest that the member is currently unable to perform the duties of her
rank and rate.
after careful consideration of all relevant
medical evidence,
the Hearing Panel finds the member fit for continued
naval service.

it is of paramount importance to remember

Therefore,

subjective standard tailored to each individual.

The performance standard
The standard is not an
The

but rather whether the member meets the

Enclosure (1)

2