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 considered you psychologically 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