Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08538-06
Original file (08538-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~5lOO




JRE
Docket No. 08538-06
25 February 2008






This is in reference to your application for correction of you naval record pursuant to the provisions of 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 underwent psychological evaluation on 20 May 2000. In the 20 June 2003 report of that evaluation you were given diagnoses of delusional disorder, grandiose and persecutory types on axis I; personality disorder, not otherwise specified, with dependant, histrionic and obsessive-compulsive traits on axis II; and problems with primary support group, legal system and occupational situation on axis IV. On 24 July 2003, the Chief, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery (BtJNED) determined that you were not physically qualified for retention in the naval service because of the delusional disorder, mixed,
and the personality disorder. On 13 August 2003, the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, approved the determination of the Chief, BUMED, and assigned you to physical risk classification “5”. On 19 December 2003, the Commanding Officer, Naval and Marine Corps Reserve Center Orlando forwarded your case to the President, Physical Evaluation Board (PEE). On 12 February 2004, the Commander, Naval Reserve Force, denied your 15 December 2003 request for line of duty benefits for the diagnosed mental disorders, which you maintained were related to your Navy Reserve service. On 14 April 2004, the Commander, Naval Reserve Force, informed the President, PEB, of the denial of line of duty benefits, and requested a determination of your fitness for retention in the Navy Reserve. On 23 April 2004, the President, PEB, in effect, requested that a medical board be conducted, and the results submitted for consideration by the PEE. On 29 June ~0D4. a mod: ca~ evaluation board determined that. you did not. show evidence of axis I or axis II mental disorders, and the noun cons id e red you psychol ogically fit for full duty. Do ft July 2004, the PEE determined that you were fit for duty.

The Board did not accept your unsubstantiated bizarre contention to the effect that the 20 June 2003 report of psychological evaluation and related documents were concocted at your husband’s direction, and/or by his second ex-wife and her daughter. The Board could not find any rational basis for concluding that the determinations made and opinions expressed by the Navy psychologist who evaluated you on 20 May 2003 are fraudulent. The administrative actions which ensued were warranted and in your best interest, as well as that of the Department of the Navy. The fact that several mental health professionals subsequently opined that you did not suffer from the diagnosed mental disorders, and that the PEB ultimately determined that you were physically qualified for service, do not mandate that the 20 June 2003 report of psychological evaluation and related documents be removed from your naval record. 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,


W.       DEAN PFEIFFEF
Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00155

    Original file (PD2012-00155.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The CI was suicidal for three weeks following the assault and had continued thoughts of killing the assailant with a gun. Although the PEB adjudicated the Alcohol Dependence with Psychological Dependence as category IV (conditions which do not constitute a physical disability) IAW DoDI 1332.38, all mental health symptoms are considered in the overall PTSD §4.130 rating. Service Treatment Record.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02202

    Original file (PD-2013-02202.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01074

    Original file (PD2012 01074.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    She was given several “rule out” diagnoses (delusional disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and paranoid personality disorder/traits) at the start of her treatment.The CI was followed by an outpatient psychiatrist whodocumented “hx of paranoid personality”on a progress note dated 07 May 2002.The CI was hospitalized following this visit which recommended that the CI be evaluated by a psychologist and considered for “repeat MEB.”(It was noted that the provider’s progress notes that...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | pd2011-00255

    Original file (pd2011-00255.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW NAME: BRANCH OF SERVICE: NAVY CASE NUMBER: PD1100255 SEPARATION DATE: 20030321 BOARD DATE: 20120130 SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty FC3/E-4 (1119, Aegis Radar System Technician), medically separated for major depression, recurrent with psychotic features. As discussed above, any impairment due to this condition was considered in...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01644

    Original file (PD-2013-01644.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of theVeterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. RECOMMENDATION : The Board recommends that the CI’s prior determination be modified as follows, effective as of the date of her prior medical separation: I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150003185

    Original file (20150003185.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Counsel states: * the applicant had several serious medical conditions that, under the governing regulations, should have rendered him unfit and medically retired due to, but not limited to, PTSD and major depressive disorder with psychotic features * the governing regulations, Army Regulation (AR) 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) and AR 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), rebut the presumption of regularity * the applicant had much more than a mere...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01187

    Original file (PD2012 01187.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is limited to those conditions determined by the PEB to be unfitting for continued military service and those conditions identified but not determined to be unfitting by the PEB when specifically requested by the CI. She was placed on medications and was able to function well. The majority agreed that the evidence did not warrant application of VASRD §4.129.The Board then determined the most appropriate fit with VASRD §4.130 criteria, its permanent rating recommendation at the time of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500958

    Original file (ND0500958.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND05-00958 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050516. B_ (Applicant) request the Bad Conduct Discharge be upgraded to a General Discharge due to clemency; along with his psychiatric condition he suffers from Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type; Axis I, 295.34; since military service was responsible for his Bad Conduct Discharge. 706 board.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070009044

    Original file (20070009044.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant was ordered to initial active duty for training (IADT) at Fort Jackson on 3 July 2003. The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s administrative discharge are not present in the available records; however, on 4 May 2006, orders were published by the Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command at Fort Bragg, which honorably discharged the applicant from the USAR under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-178. It must also be presumed, in the absence of...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00566

    Original file (PD2009-00566.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    This review was completed and the initial rating was corrected to a 70% rating for 9211 Schizoaffective Disorder, Depressed Type. These records support a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, depressed type (as opposed to mood disorder NOS) as well as either personality disorder or traits. As discussed above, PEB rated the CI’s mental health condition IAW with DoDI 1332.39 which was in effect at the time the CI separated from service and the condition was adjudicated independently of that...