DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS) 4
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No. 05049-07
16 June 2008
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
late husband’s 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 5 June 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 husband’s 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 your husband died on 4 July 1993 in an
automobile accident. His death was classified as “not in the
line of duty” based on findings that his death resulted from the
reckless operation of a motor vehicle while he was severely
intoxicated. In an opinion dated 28 November 2006, the Board of
Veterans Appeals held that
“credible evidence of record shows that the veteran suffered
from feelings of depression and anxiety at the time of his
death. Furthermore, the Board finds that the veteran’s
depression contributed substantially to his decision to drink
and drive on the date of his death and this unsound decision
ultimately resulted in his death. In the Board’s opinion, the
veteran would not have made the decision to drink and drive had
he not been suffering from depression and under an excessive
amount of stress related to flight engineer’s school”
The BVA did not find that his death was a suicide.
The BVA based its findings in large part on testimony and other
information provided by you and your sister-in-law, and the
opinion of a psychiatric social worker, who formed his opinion
based on information you provided him. Both you and your
sister-in-law asserted that your husband became depressed and
possibly developed posttraumatic stress disorder upon his return
from the first Persian Gulf War (PGW). His record shows,
however, that he did not deploy to the theater of operations
during the first PGW, participate in or return from that
conflict. In addition, you testified before the BVA that your
child was born after your husband’s return from the PGW, whereas
available records show that the child was born during April
1990. As you may know, Kuwait was not invaded by Iraqi forces
until August 1990.
As there is no credible evidence that your husband’s death was a
Suicide and that he lacked mental responsibility for his
actions, there is no basis for reversing the adverse line of
duty finding that was made by the Department of the Navy in his
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,
W. DEAN PF R
Executive rector
NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 08518-04
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 October 2005. This man shows evidence of an antisocial personality disorder of moderate severity which existed prior to enlistment, and certainly makes him unsuitable for continued Naval Service. Minimum average marks of 3.0 in conduct and 2.7 in overall traits were required for a fully honorable characterization of service at the time of your separation.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01180-07
Specifically, the panel of the Board that considered your case was not persuaded you were issued the silencing order described in your application, that you suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder while serving on active duty in the Navy, or that you were unfit to reasonably perform the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating by reason of physical disability prior to your separation from the Navy. Two other survivors of the Liberty attack have applied for correction of their naval...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016083
He served continuously until his death on 7 June 2006. He and another person left their location on motorcycles and were involved in an accident at approximately 2210 hours. Based on eyewitness statements showing the applicant had been drinking prior to the accident and his high level reading on the BAC, the LOD investigation determined that the amount of alcohol in the FSM's system impaired his judgment and slowed his reflexes, resulting in the motor vehicle accident that killed him.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130021983
The applicant requests correction of his record to show he was discharged due to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with depression and a personality disorder. The VA examiner reported that you had a mental condition (PTSD) prior to service due to stressors you had experienced, particularly the death of friends in a motorcycle accident. The examiner stated that you had symptoms of both PTSD and a personality disorder.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04312
The complete AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 5 March 2013 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 27 February 2013. BY DIRECTION OF THE PANEL CHAIR Chief Examiner Air Force Board for Correction of Military...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021983
The applicant requests, in effect, the DD Form 261 (Report of Investigation-Line of Duty and Misconduct Status), dated 5 January 2009, pertaining to her deceased husband, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to show his death was in "Line of Duty." As she looks back on the situation and as she reviews his medical records, she does not believe his death resulted from willful misconduct on his part. The evidence of records shows the FSM was involved in a vehicle accident that resulted...
NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00109
My record of promotions showed I was generally a good service member. FIRST OFFENSE (Time in Service 2 years): After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).Issues 1 & 2: The applicant requested her discharge be upgraded to honorable based upon her observed and documented performance evaluations.
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01644
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 | CY2008 | 20080017904
Since the Final CID report of investigation clearly established misconduct, the FSM's death was found to be not in the line of duty due to own misconduct. The applicant provided medical evidence of record, dated 22 September 2005, which states that he was deployable. Since the governing regulation states that any wrongfully drug-induced actions that cause injury, disease, or death are misconduct, and the Final CID report of investigation clearly established misconduct, the FSM was found to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001263C070206
The applicant provides: a. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief and to excuse failure to timely file. Ronald E. Blakely ______________________ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20050001263 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20050927 TYPE OF DISCHARGE UOTHC DATE OF DISCHARGE 19840502 DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR 635-200 C10 DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION GRANT REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1.