DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No. 00759-04
15 March 2005
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 3 March
2005. 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.
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 were evaluated by the Physical Evaluation
Board (PEB) on 7 February 2001, and found to be unfit for duty by
reason of a psychotic disorder not otherwise specified, rated at 30%
less a 20% non-compliance factor, for a net rating of 10%. The PEB
also determined that you suffered from a somatization disorder that
was not separately unfitting or ratable. You accepted those findings
on 8 March 2001, and were discharged with entitlement to disability
severance pay on 23 March 2001. Following your discharge, the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded you a 40% rating for a
somatization disorder manifested by irritable bowel syndrome, headaches and
spastic myositis, and 10% ratings for eczema and a left knee condition.
The Board was not persuaded that you were erroneously discharged from the
Navy by reason of a psychotic disorder, or that you were entitled to a
disability rating for a somatization disorder. It noted that unlike the VA,
which rates all conditions incurred in, aggravated by or merely traceable
to a period of military service, the military departments rate only those
conditions that render a service member unfit for duty. As you have not
demonstrated that you were unfit for duty because of the effects of the
somatization disorder, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective
action in your case. 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,
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00293
The informal PEB (IPEB) adjudicated the mood disorder (major depression, without psychotic features) due to multiple medical conditions as the single unfitting condition, rated 10%; with application of the SECNAVINST 1850.4E and DoDI 1332.39. The Veterans’ Affairs (VA), however, can rate and compensate all service connected conditions without regard to their impact on performance of military duties, including conditions developing after separation that are direct complications of a service...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08590-07
Board requesting, in effect, that her naval record be corrected to show that she was not released from active duty on 30 June 2005. The Director concluded that Petitioner had provided insufficient documentation to warrant recommending that her request be granted “due to indications that petitioner was not unfit for continued Naval service despite having been disqualified from flight status.” The Director stated that should additional records become available that are “indicative of active...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01160-99
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Y 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 203704100 JRE Docket No: 1160-99 21 June 2000 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. The Board, consisting of Ms. Nofziger and Messrs. Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 11 May regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. ...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00111
The CI was referred to the Navy Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) and determined unfit for continued Naval service. He revealed his anxiety disorder on his commissioning physical but denied any symptoms at the time and the condition was considered resolved. The CI’s condition worsened over time and the VA increased his rating to 50% effective two years after he separated from the Navy.
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01782
Any conditions or contention not requested in this application, or otherwise outside the Board’s defined scope of review, remain eligible for future consideration by the Board for Correction of Military Records. The diagnosis was the same as at the MEB exam with the C&P examiner noting “GAF of 45- “indicating major symptoms of depression along with evidence of impairment of reality with visual hallucinations and problems with sleep and concentration, which would interfere with her ability...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06432-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 September 2010. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
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...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00923
The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) adjudicated the FMS as unfitting, rated 20%, with application of the Veteran’s Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The Board notes that the PEB considered the somatization disorder to be a Category II condition (one which contributes to the unfit condition, but it not separately unfitting) and that the VA also associated it with the fibromyalgia condition and awarded it a 0% disability rating. No evidence was found that this condition...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02202
At TDRL entry, the PEB rated the condition of conversion disorder, coded 9424, at 10%. The Board further recommends a 30% permanent disability rating for the condition of somatization disorder. TDRL neurology removal examination dated 3 February 2006, approximately 17 months after TDRL entry, recorded decreased sensory in left digits four and five, and pain on palpation of the surgical scar.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07721-09
You had no military status during the period from 26 June 1979 to 19 December 1988. , The Board considered your application and all pertinent records in accordance with the provisions of SECNAV Instruction 5420.193, enclosure (1), Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (codified at 32 CFR 723), paragraph 3e. During the 1979-1989 period, you received treatment from VA health care providers for multiple conditions such as hip, back and knee pain, chronic recurrent foot pain,...