DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No. 04852-06
23 July 2007
Dear Sie.
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 19 July 2007. 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 enlisted in the Navy on 25 October 1999.
It appears that your enlistment was fraudulent, in that you
denied having a history of a suicide attempt when you underwent
your pre-enlistment physical examination. You were honorably
discharged on 16 April 2004 by reason of a personality disorder.
The Board rejected your unsubstantiated contention to the effect
that you were unfit for duty by reason of physical disability on
16 April 2004because of the effects of a depressive disorder, and
that you should have been retired by reason of physical
disability rather than discharged administratively. The fact
that the Department of Veterans Affairs awarded you service
connection and a 30% disability rating for a depressive disorder
is not probative of the existence of error or injustice in your
Navy record, because the VA awards disability ratings without
regard to the issue of fitness for military service. Unlike the
VA, the military departments may assign disability ratings only
in those cases where a service member has been found unfit to
reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or
rating by reason of physical disability.
The Board rejected your contention to the effect that you did not
suffer from a personality disorder. It noted that when you were
interviewed by a VA psychologist on 24 November 2004, you
presented yourself in a much more favorable light than you had
when you underwent psychological evaluation and testing prior to
your discharge from the Navy. The Board considered it
Significant that the VA psychologist did not rule-out' the
existence of a personality disorder, as he gave you a diagnosis
of “Diagnosis deferred”, on Axis II, Personality Disorders, in
the report of psychological evaluation and testing he prepared in
your case.
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.
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,
eed
Executive Di
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02336-00
You were evaluated by a Navy psychiatrist on 11 March 1997, and reported that you felt the Paxil was helping and that you were feeling much better. The increase was based on a report of treatment dated 30 November 1998, and a VA rating examination conducted on 4 May 1999, which indicated your depressive symptoms had increased in severity The Board noted that in order to qualify for disability separation or retirement from the Armed Forces, a service member must be found unfit to perform the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07101-00
The diagnosis of Delusional Disorder, Paranoid Type, was thus established at this evaluation. The petitioner's psychological evaluations consistently reported that no delusions were present. However, this does not SUBJ: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN CASE OF mean the condition was also present at the time they were diagnosed solely as Personality Disorder.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100022614
On 12 July 2010, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request to change the narrative reason for separation of his discharge from personality disorder to physical disability retirement. The evidence of record confirms the applicant underwent two mental health evaluations that diagnosed him as having a personality disorder not amounting to a disability that interfered with the performance of his duties. The narrative reason for separation was assigned based on his being separated...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110025064
e. On 3 November 2009, during a visit, the doctor entered "Chronic Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder" in his service medical records and from then on all his service medical records show PTSD. He provided service medical records, dated between November 2009 and January 2010, which notes PTSD symptoms. Although his service medical records note PTSD there is no evidence to show PTSD or any medical condition rendered him unable to perform his duties.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02561-98
The fact that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) granted you service connection for post traumatic stress disorder in 1997, effective from 23 August 1994, was not considered probative of error or injustice in your naval record. prior to your discharge were related to a personality disorder, which is a condition not covered by the military disability evaluation system, rather than a physical disability. It appears likely that the diagnosis made with all information would be PTSD and...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00536
The History of Right Axillary Third-Degree Burn and PTSD were determined to be medically unacceptable and the CI was referred to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), determined to be unfit for continued military service, and separated at 20% disability using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Ratings Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Navy and Department of Defense regulations. The CI was not on medication for either condition at that time, but Lexapro was restarted in January 2006. The...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00867
A 24 January 2007 clinic record entry reflected the CI reported medication was working well for his headaches but had recurred when he ran out of medication.At a VA C&P examination, dated 23 July 2007, 5 months after separation, the CI reported two headaches per week, but added that he was not incapacitated by headaches, and had lost “no time from work due to headache.”The Board directs attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence. The PEB found the headaches unfitting...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02290-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 February 2002. Unlike the VA, the military departments are permitted to assign disability ratings only in those cases where the service member has been found unfit for duty. 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.
CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 1997-115
His diagnoses on discharge were reported as follows: “1. VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On August 18, 1999, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board deny the applicant the requested relief. 1995), indicates that the Commandant’s decision was justified because the applicant “was not treated or rated for [paranoid schizophrenia] while serving on active duty.” The Chief Counsel also stated that the apparent contradiction between the VA’s findings and those of the Coast Guard...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120019264
The notes indicated she was previously diagnosed with Personality Disorder during care at the VA. c. There is insufficient information available from her time in service to determine the support for a diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) governs the evaluation of physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of a physical disability. The Army must find...