DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
“ Docket No. 08506-06
19 February 2008
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to tne provisions of title iG 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 14 February 2008. 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 Marine Corps on 28
August 1996. You underwent psychiatric evaluation on 7 December
1998, and were given diagnoses of adjustment disorder with
depressed mood, rule-out substance induced mental disorder;
alcohol abuse, rule-out alcohol dependence; occupational
problem; and partner relational problem. You were not
considered to be mentally ill, and did not have any psychiatric
diagnoses that would result in your referral to a medical or
physical evaluation board. Upon completion of the evaluation,
you were returned to full duty. You were released from active
duty on 27 August 2000, upon the completion of your active duty
service obligation. On 17 September 2002, the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) granted you service connection for
dysthymic disorder because “you were diagnosed and treated for
adjustment disorder in Service in December 1999, an VA
examination show you with a current diagnosis of dysthymic
disorder, with anxiety, psychotic features.”
It appears that the VA granted you service connection for a
mental disorder because VA rating officials felt that the
dysthymic disorder which was diagnosed in 2002 was related to
the previously diagnosed adjustment disorder, which is not
considered to be a disability under the laws administered by the
military departments. As the available records do not
demonstrate that you suffered from an unfitting mental disorder
when released from active duty in August 2000, there is no basis
for granting your request for corrective action. 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,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05272-01
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. Board of Correction of Naval Records. (Ma.jor Depressive The Should the petitioner have been retired by reason of physical disability service member did suffer from a psychiatric...
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-02931
SEPARATION DATE: 20050502 The Board noted that despite medication and talk therapy, the CI continued to demonstrate “consistently poor mood and work performance.” After due deliberation, considering all of the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt), the Board recommends a disability rating of 30% for the dysthymic disorder condition. BOARD FINDINGS : IAW DoDI 6040.44, provisions of DoD or Military Department regulations or guidelines relied upon by the PEB will not be...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02157
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02157 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation be changed from adjustment disorder to medically retired. On 21 May 2009, she was notified of her commanders intent to discharge her from the Air Force for Conditions that Interfere with Military Service: Mental...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 07064-00
A three—member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 May 2001. 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. 2. Review of available Navy medical records revealed: a.
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01158
Although gait revealed a “slight limp right leg,” heel, toe and tandem walking were reportedly normal. At the general medical C&P evaluation 2 weeks after separation, the CI reported he had not consumed alcohol for 3 months, but that he was previously drinking a six pack, a fifth of whiskey or a case of beer daily.At the C&P examination, dated 13 December 2004 (a month after separation), the CI reported an inpatient psychiatric hospitalization at age 16 for mental evaluation in the context...
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01997
The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. RECOMMENDATION : The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no re-characterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination. I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01883-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 July 2002. 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 policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00133
The rating for the unfitting dysthymic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and PTSD conditions is addressed below;no additional conditions are within the DoDI 6040.44 defined purview of the Board. There are no separate mental health records available for review outside the narrative summary (NARSUM) and addendum until the VA records well after separation. As noted, the history upon which the VA based this decision is not consistent with the historical record.The Board directed...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01496
Although she continued to endorse symptoms of PTSD, her GAF was 60 which correlated with moderate symptoms or moderate difficulty in social, occupational, or school functioning.The documents did not cite evidence which would confirm that either reliability or productivity on the job was suffering because of psychiatric symptoms, and both speculation and liberal reliance on reasonable doubt would be required to draw that conclusion.Her level of disability at that time was most consistent with...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2004-167
CGPC also noted that a civilian psychiatrist did not find that the applicant had a personality disorder. The Coast Guard did not commit an error by discharging the applicant by reason of personality disorder based on the psychiatric report dated December 27, 2002, in which the military psychiatrist determined that the applicant suffered from a personality disorder NOS with narcissistic traits and that he could be discharged if his performance and behavior did not improve. While the Board...