DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

JRE
Docket No: 5272-01
14 November 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 7 November 2002.
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. In addition, the Board
considered the advisory opinion furnished by designees of the Specialty Leader for
Psychiatry, a copy of which is attached.

Your allegations of error and

Documentary material considered by the Board

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the
evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained
in the advisory opinion. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

  Board found that 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.
important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.

In this regard, it is

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

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHIATRY

NAVAL MEDICAL CENTER

PORTSMOUTH. VIRGINIA 23708-2 197

From: Case Reviewers
TO 
:

Chairman. Board of Correction of Naval Records.
Department of the Navy. Washington. D.C. 20370-2 197

Sub.;: APPLICATION FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS IN TIHE CASE 

OF

FORME

Ref: (a) Your  

ltr dtd 23 APR 02

Encl: (1)
(2)
(3)

BCNR file
Service Record
VA Record/ Medical record

1. Pursuant to reference (a) a review of enclosures (l-3) was conducted to form opinions
about the subject petitioner’s claims that her discharge was involuntary, her decision
to leave the Navy was prompted by an inability to receive help from military sources,
and that she should have been retired by reason of physical disability.

2. Facts of the case:

(a>

@I

cc>

The petitioner enlisted in the United States Navy in April 1986.

In 1989 she was evaluated for grief and marital issues in the context of
chronic abdominal/pelvic pain. She received a diagnosis of V:Phase of Life
Problem and Psychological factors affecting her physical condition.

She received medical evaluations for mental health issues in June 1995 and
December 1997. The DEC 97 evaluation lead to psychiatric referral. She was
subsequently evaluated by psychiatry at Madigan Army Medical Center on 16
DEC 97. She received a diagnosis of  “Adjustment, Situational Disorder” and
“r/o Dysthymia.”Treatment recommendations included insight-oriented
therapy and to return in 3 weeks.

The petitioner reported that she was told to “get a life.” She stated that
she received a second psychiatric evaluation by another provider but chose
not to return because “appointments were available only every 4 to 6 weeks

and I knew I needed more help than that” and because “I did not have the
energy to go” citing a 90-minute commute.

She began psychiatric care through a civilian provider in 1998. During the
course 
dail!,.

of 
treatment  she was started on paroxetine which was titrated to 50mg

Dysthymic Disorder. r/o PTSD and r/o Paranoid Personality

JlJL 99 resulted

July 1999 she received an evaluation by a military psychologist.

In 
Psychological testing on 22 JUL 99 suggested diagnoses of Major Depressive
Disorder. 
Disorder. A subsequent military psychiatric evaluation on 29 
in diagnoses of Depressive Disorder Not Otherwise Specified,
V:Bereavement,  Alcohol Abuse and V: Occupational Problem.
Documentation from this evaluation stated “she meets psychiatric retention
standards.” She was advised to decrease paroxetine to 40mg daily and was
150mg daily. She was also advised to abstain from
started on bupropion SR 
a1c01101.

Psychiatric follow up on 16 AUG 1999 documented that the petitioner was
“doing well.” The psychiatrist documented that the petitioner “feels she is
making the right decision” regarding civilian life and “feels she will do better
in civilian life”. 
significant active depressive symptoms.

Mental:status examination did not reveal evidence of

.

She was released from active duty on 3 1 August 1999. Her 
9%AUG 99 indicated standard or above standard performance in all areas
except for military bearing. Military bearing was rated below standard for
FITREP noted “during this rating
failure to be in body fat standards. Her 
period she has been preoccupied with personal and professional challenges
which have had a negative impact on her overall performance.”

FITREP from SEP

On 20 FEB 01 the petitioner was denied service connection benefits for
depression by the Department of Veteran’s Affairs based on a lack of active
symptoms. The findings were appealed and on 13 JUL 0 1 she was granted a
30% rating for Depressive Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (effective 01
SEP 99) based on depressive symptoms while on active duty as well as
symptoms that had recurred around and after FEB 0 1.

CC )

(6)

(h)

3. The following opinions were submitted:

(a) Was the petitioner’s discharge from the Navy on an involuntary basis?

There was no evidence presented to suggest that the petitioner was
discharged against her will.

Was the petitioner able to receive help from military  sources? Based on
multiple military medical evaluations between 1989 and 1999 it appears that
medical help was available and was utilized by the petitioner. Although the
location and timing of follow up appointments after her
were not considered satisfactory to the petitioner, she had the option to
continue treatment  and chose not to.

 
DEC 97 evaluation

’? 
 
(Ma.jor Depressive

The

Should the petitioner have been retired by reason of physical disability
service member did suffer from a psychiatric disorder
Disorder vs. Depressive Disorder Not Otherwise Specified) while on active
duty. She has continued to have depressive symptoms since discharge. It is
possible that her psychiatric condition negatively impacted her ability to
handle occupational and emotional stress. It is also likely that the presence
of a depressive disorder and treatment with paroxetine (which is commonly
associated with weight gain) contributed to her inability to maintain weight
standards. Taking these factors into consideration, it is still unlikely that her
psychiatric illness would have necessitated a medical retirement. At the time
of discharge, the petitioner appeared to have been benefiting from treatment
and was functioning well enough to maintain standard to above standard
performance in almost all areas. Her psychiatric evaluations immediately
prior to discharge indicated that she was doing well clinically and was
considered to “meet
that although a psychiatric disorder was present, it was not causing
impairment to an extent that would necessitate a medical retirement by
reason of physical disability.

@ychiatric retention standards. ” This would suggest

 

under the supervision of