DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
JRE

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
Docket No. 08590-07
16 January 2009

 

From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records

   

To: Secretary of the Navy
Subj: tibiaipasiilll an
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD
Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552
Encl: DD Form 149 w/attachments

NNMC Behavioral Health Clinic ltr (undated)
SECNAVCORB ltr 5220 CORB:02, 10 Dec 08
Subject's naval record

BWwWN EH

1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject,
hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with
this. Board requesting, in effect, that her naval record be
corrected to show that she was not released from active duty on
30 June 2005. She also requests that she be referred to the
Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) for a determination of her

fitness for duty. She contends, in effect, that as she was found
not physically qualified for separation, she should have been
retained on active duty and referred to a physical evaluation
board PEB, rather than released from active duty and transferred
to the Individual Ready Reserve.

2. The Board, consisting of Ms. neni, Mr. QR and Ms.
MME «evi ewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice

on 15 January 2009 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined
that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on
the available evidence of record. Documentary material
considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval
records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.

3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record
pertaining to Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice
finds as follows:

a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all
administrative remedies available under existing law and

regulations within the Department of the Navy.

b. Enclosure (1) was filed in a timely marmer.
c. Petitioner enlisted in the Navy Reserve on 22 July 2000 to
attend Aviation Officer Candidate School. She was commissioned
as an ensign on 20 October 2000. Upon her completion of flight
training, she was designated as a naval aviator. During
Operation Iraqi Freedom, she flew HH60H and SH60F helicopters on
combat and combat support missions. On 24 February 2005, she
requested that she be released from flight status. She
underwent psychiatric evaluation on 18 March 2005, and disclosed
a history of anhedonia (inability to experience pleasure), poor
motivation, hypersomnia (excessive sleepiness), weight loss,
anxiety about flying, and thoughts of committing suicide while
flying. She was diagnosed with depressive disorder not otherwise
specified (likely major depression with underlying dysthymic
disorder), schizoid traits, and an unspecified occupational
disorder. She underwent a pre-separation physical examination
on 31 May 2005, which was conducted by a flight surgeon. The
flight surgeon made the following entry in item 74a of the
report of examination: “Is not qualified for service. NPQ/AA No
Waiver". In item 77, Summary of Defects and Diagnoses, he wrote
“H/O Major Depression/Social Anxiety txd c Zoloft — CD No waiver
rec”. He recommended that she follow-up with “Mental Health” as
needed, but did not refer her for further evaluation or
recommend consideration of her status by a medical board.
Petitioner was released from active duty on 30 June 2005 by
reason of Secretarial Authority, and transferred to the IRR to
complete her remaining military service obligation. On 15
November 2005, the Chief, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery,
advised the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, that Petitioner
was not physically qualified for active service, promotion, and
transfer to or retention in the Ready Reserve or active duty for
training, due to depression. Effective 1 July 2005, the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded Petitioner a
disability rating of 30% for major depressive disorder, separate
rating of 10% for tinnitus, muscle strain, recurrent urinary
tract infection, and temporal mandibular joint dysfunction, and
0% ratings for three other conditions. Ina rating decision
dated 23 September 2006, the VA changed the diagnosis of the
first disability to paranoid schizophrenia, and maintained the
30% disability rating.

d. In correspondence attached as enclosure (2), the Board was
advised by a psychiatric reviewer designated by the Specialty
Leader for Psychiatry, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, in
effect, that Petitioner was diagnosed with Major Depressive
Disorder prior to her release from active duty and should have
been referred to the PEB. As her psychosis was documented only
three months after she was released from active duty, it is
likely that it emerged even sooner and would have been diagnosed
by an active duty psychiatrist had she been accorded a medical
board. Her symptoms fit the expected early course of what was
ultimately diagnosed schizophrenia, to include depressive
symptoms and social anxiety. In addition, she disclosed that
her suicidal thoughts had been influenced by psychotic thinking.
Given those factors, a diagnosis of “Major Depressive Disorder,
Severe, with Psychotic Features”, would have been appropriate.

e. In correspondence attached as enclosure (3), the Director,
Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards, advised the
Board, in effect, that the available evidence is insufficient to
demonstrate that Petitioner’s psychiatric condition adversely
affected her duty performance to an extent that would have
rendered her unfit for continued naval service had her case been
referred to the PEB prior to her release from active duty. The
mild Major Depressive Disorder diagnosed while Petitioner was on
active duty warranted her removal from flight status; however,
even considering the possibility that she was experiencing
prodromal symptoms of a psychotic disorder at that time, which
she did not disclose, it appears that her documented duty
impairment was largely limited to her flying status, as noted in
the 18 March 2005 psychiatric evaluation which determined that
she was fit, but not for flight status. Although her condition
could have resulted in referral to the PEB, regulations provide
that the loss of a special qualification, such as occurs when
one is disqualified from flying duty, for example, is
insufficient to warrant a finding of unfitness by the Department
of the Navy PEB. He noted that post-discharge records spanning
about a 5-month period suggest that despite symptoms suggestive
of a schizophrenic spectrum disorder which levied a toll on her
personal life, she was able to maintain employment. 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 duty
performance over the last six months of her Naval service”,
further review of her case would be warranted.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and
notwithstanding the comments contained in enclosure (3), the
Board concludes that Petitioner should have been accorded a
medical board prior to her release from active duty, as
indicated by the author of enclosure (2). In addition, after
resolving doubt in Petitioner’s favor, the Board concludes she
was likely experiencing symptoms of a psychotic disorder prior
to her release from active duty, and that had those symptoms
been disclosed by her, or identified by her mental health care
providers, she would have been found unfit for duty by reason of

physical disability and transferred to the TDRL. Accordingly,
the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the

following corrective action.
RECOMMENDATION:

a. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that
on 30 June 2005, while she was entitled to receive basic pay,
the Secretary of the Navy found her unfit to perform the duties
of her rank by reason of physical disability due to major
depressive disorder, which was incurred while she was entitled
to receive basic pay; that the disability is not due to
intentional misconduct or willful neglect, and was not incurred
during a period of unauthorized absence; that the disability is
considered to be ratable at 30% in accordance with the Standard
Schedule for Rating Disabilities in use by the Department of
Veterans Affairs at the time the Secretary found Petitioner
unfit, Code Number 9434; and that accepted medical principles
indicate the disability may be of a permanent nature,
accordingly, the Secretary directed that Petitioner’s name be
placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List effective 1 July
2005 pursuant to 10 U.S. Code 1202, with a disability rating of
30%.

b. That Petitioner be afforded a periodic physical
examination as soon as practicable. Current address:

   

c. That so much of her request for corrective action as
exceeds the foregoing be denied.

4. It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's
review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and
complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled

matter.

 

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Recorder [ices Recorder
oe
5. The foregoing report of the Board is submitted for your

review and action.

W. DEAN PFRIWRE

Deggreved:

Qasr, Ca.

D-AW 04

.
Robert T. Call 5
Assistant General Counsel
Manpower and Reserve Affairs)