DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 TRG
Docket No: 2187-08
18 April 2008

 

 

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 15 April 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 record shows that you served in the Navy Reserve from 3
August 1942 until you were honorably discharged on 20 November
1945. On 15 July 1947 you reenlisted in the Navy Reserve and
then served in a satisfactory manner for about 13 years. In the
early 1960's you were advanced to chief petty officer.

On 17 June 1961 you were referred to a Veterans Administration
Hospital by your private doctor for evaluation because you were
depressed, nervous and irritable. The evaluation stated, in

part, as follows:

... After several days and much evaluation, the
Situation seemed to be progressing in a downhill
fashion rather rapidly and symptoms of depression began
to develop in the patient. His sleeping habits began
to disintegrate and his appetite, interest level and

general mood became quite markedly depressed.
Therefore, on 7-4-61, it was decided to give the

patient a course of electroconvulsive treatments
[ECT's]. On Wednesday, 7-5-61, the patient received
his first ECT and following that he received a course
of 10 ECTs carrying him through 7-26-61. There was not
noted to be too much response to the ECTs for the first
five treatments, however, following that the patient
began to improve markedly. His depressive
symptomatology decreased and his hostile and paranoid
thinking about his wife also became minimal. His
tolerance of her was noted to improve. On 7-12-61 the
patient's [medications] were discontinued. ... (Some
minor changes for clarity) ,

You were discharged from the hospital on 28 July 1961 with
medication and a recommendation to see your personal physician in
two weeks. The discharge diagnoses were depressive reaction,
adult situational reaction and passive aggressive personality.

A Report of Medical Examination dated 11 March 1962, conducted to
determine if you should be retained in the Navy, noted diagnoses
of depressive reaction and passive aggressive personality, which
were considered to be disqualifying. On 20 June 1962 the Bureau
of Medicine and Surgery (BUMED) found you not physically
qualified for service. The Physical Evaluation Board
subsequently found you not physically qualified and the Bureau of
Naval Personnel (BUPERS) directed your discharge. Your
anniversary year ended on 30 June 1962. In that anniversary year
you were credited with 48 of the 50 retirement points needed for
a qualifying year of service. You were honorably discharged on 5
March 1963. At that time, you were credited with 17 years, 3
months and 8 days of qualifying service for reserve retirement.

In May 1965, BUMED reconsidered and denied your request for
further service. On 16 January 1967, BUPERS informed you that
you were not eligible for retired pay at age 60 because you did
not have 20 qualifying years of service.

In reaching its decision in the current review of your case, the
Board found that the report from the VA and the medical
examination of 11 March 1962 were sufficient for BUMED and PEB to
find that you were not physically qualified. Regulations in
effect both before and for many years after the BUMED and PEB
findings generally required discharge when an individual was
found not physically qualified for further service. Since you
have not shown that you were discharged in error, and as you have
been treated no differently than many others in your situation,
the Board could not find an error of injustice in your 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,

Nadu

W. DEAN PFEJURF
Executive Dil r
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
(MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS)
1000 NAVY PENTAGON
WASHINGTON DC 20350-1000

 

May 5, 2008

 

This correspondence is in response to your request that I
reconsider the decision by the. Board for Correction of Naval.

Records (BCNR) to deny your request for Military retirement
status. In. the letter, you also expressed concern about the .

fairness of the review conducted by BCNR. As a result, I
directed that a new BCNR Panel be appointed with members
unfamiliar with your case to consider your petition and provide
a recommendation to me for review and final disposition. The
result of the Panel’s effort and my review are outlined below.

The BCNR is empowered to act for the Secretary of the Navy
and, when deemed appropriate, correct military records. The new
Panel carefully reviewed the record and supplemental information
you provided, and unanimously determined that the evidence was
insufficient to justify changing your Military record to reflect
retirement from the Navy. Despite this recommendation, I too
personally reviewed the record and concur with the Panel’s
recommendation that relief is not warranted.

In taking this action, the BCNR resolved the matter on

behalf of the Secretary. Unless you can provide new and
material evidence to the Board, further reconsideration within

the Department of the Navy is not appropriate. Since the BCNR
decision constitutes final agency action, you may seek judicial

relief in a court of competent jurisdiction.

I know this is not the decision that you had hoped to
receive and in no way diminishes your 17 plus years of honorable
and faithful service to our nation. I wish you good health and

happiness in the years ahead.

Sincerely,

Qasr. Gaz

Robert T. Cali
Assistant General Counsel
(Manpower and Reserve Affairs)