The topic is getting help benefits support from the DOD for conditions caused by military service
Hassay case proves:
Strength is penalized in service DOD benefits denied
Weakness is awarded in service DOD benefits approved
----------------
“The record shows that Mr. Hassay sought psychiatric help for his
mental health conditions within weeks after his separation from the Navy”
This Board has the benefit of reviewing your performance
with hindsight, which unequivocally established that your mental health conditions did not
impair your ability to perform your duties in any way.
The objective evidence reflects that you were fully capable of performing
your duties despite this condition without any restrictions.
There is also insufficient evidence
that it may have seriously compromised your health or well-being by remaining in the USNR.
The only evidence that you offered for this contention was the statement provided by Dr. Foote,
but as discussed further below the Board did not find that statement to be credible or supported
by the record. Considering that your mental health only began to deteriorate long after your
discharge from the USNR and that your PTSD symptoms did not manifest in any way harmful to
your health during your service, it was not your continued service which compromised your
health and well-being.
Sexual assault is not a
disqualifying medical condition; its only relevance in this regard is the effect that such an
experience may have contributed to your mental health. As such, this experience was considered
in the context of your reported mental health conditions, as discussed below.
The Board found insufficient evidence
to conclude that your continued service in the USNR was ever questionable due to any mental
health conditions, that your ability to fully perform you military duties was ever in doubt, or that
your continued service may have compromised your health or well-being.
Mr. Hassay again cites to Stuart and Ferrell, as well as Reaves v. United States, 128 Fed.
Cl. 196, 201 (2016), to support the assertion that a lack of contemporaneous evidence cannot be
used against a service member seeking a correction of records. Resp. at 32. However, this
argument ignores a key aspect of all of those decisions—in all three cases the court determined that
the relevant service had failed to follow its own procedures and this resulted in the lack of
contemporaneous evidence. Stuart I, 108 Fed. Cl. at 568-69; Ferrell, 23 Cl. Ct. at 568; Reaves, 128
Fed. Cl. at 201. Unlike the service members in Stuart, Ferrell and Reaves, Mr. Hassay has not
shown that the Navy failed to appropriately follow any of its own procedures or that it failed to
produce appropriate documentation. Further, in all three of the cases cited by Mr. Hassay, there
was a particular, documented in-service incident which led to the service member receiving
medical treatment. Ferrell, 23 Cl. Ct. at 564 (active duty mobility exercise aggravated lower back
injury); Stuart I, 108 Fed. Cl. at 461 (service member injured when riding in vehicle hit by IED in
combat area); Reaves, 128 Fed. Cl. at 197 (service member failed routine test for required body
weight and was placed in ongoing, documented weight control program). Here, no such incident
took place and Mr. Hassay was not receiving ongoing medical treatment from the Navy.
Furthermore, the Navy medical records in the administrative record show no physical inability to
perform his duties and reflect that any psychological issues were a result of personal problems, not
naval service. AR99 & AR226-227. Thus, Mr. Hassay is incorrect in his assertion that the board
drew a negative inference from a lack of evidence. Instead, the board determined that substantial
evidence supported the determination Mr. Hassay was fit for duty.
Further, the board noted that it accepted as true Mr. Hassay’s
assertions of assault and mental illness. Remand Determination at 16–17. However, accepting
these assertions as true could not alter the record evidence, which was wholly devoid of any
indication that Mr. Hassay was unable to perform his duties. Id.
The board considered other evidence concerning Mr. Hassay’s medical condition during
service. This evidence includes Mr. Hassay’s 1998 attempt to enlist in the Army, Mr. Hassay’s
2021 personal statement regarding previous suicidal thoughts or plans, and medical examinations
that occurred after Mr. Hassay left the service. Remand Determination at 14–16. After evaluating
each of these events and accepting as true that Mr. Hassay suffered from several mental health
conditions while serving in the Navy Reserves, the board reasonably concluded that “there is no
evidence whatsoever that these conditions manifested themselves in any way during [Mr.
Hassay’s] USNR service that negatively impacted [his] health and safety or [his] ability to perform
the duties of [his] office, grade, rank, or rating.” Remand Determination at 16.
Hassay case proves:
Strength is penalized in service DOD benefits denied
Weakness is awarded in service DOD benefits approved
----------------
“The record shows that Mr. Hassay sought psychiatric help for his
mental health conditions within weeks after his separation from the Navy”
This Board has the benefit of reviewing your performance
with hindsight, which unequivocally established that your mental health conditions did not
impair your ability to perform your duties in any way.
The objective evidence reflects that you were fully capable of performing
your duties despite this condition without any restrictions.
There is also insufficient evidence
that it may have seriously compromised your health or well-being by remaining in the USNR.
The only evidence that you offered for this contention was the statement provided by Dr. Foote,
but as discussed further below the Board did not find that statement to be credible or supported
by the record. Considering that your mental health only began to deteriorate long after your
discharge from the USNR and that your PTSD symptoms did not manifest in any way harmful to
your health during your service, it was not your continued service which compromised your
health and well-being.
Sexual assault is not a
disqualifying medical condition; its only relevance in this regard is the effect that such an
experience may have contributed to your mental health. As such, this experience was considered
in the context of your reported mental health conditions, as discussed below.
The Board found insufficient evidence
to conclude that your continued service in the USNR was ever questionable due to any mental
health conditions, that your ability to fully perform you military duties was ever in doubt, or that
your continued service may have compromised your health or well-being.
Mr. Hassay again cites to Stuart and Ferrell, as well as Reaves v. United States, 128 Fed.
Cl. 196, 201 (2016), to support the assertion that a lack of contemporaneous evidence cannot be
used against a service member seeking a correction of records. Resp. at 32. However, this
argument ignores a key aspect of all of those decisions—in all three cases the court determined that
the relevant service had failed to follow its own procedures and this resulted in the lack of
contemporaneous evidence. Stuart I, 108 Fed. Cl. at 568-69; Ferrell, 23 Cl. Ct. at 568; Reaves, 128
Fed. Cl. at 201. Unlike the service members in Stuart, Ferrell and Reaves, Mr. Hassay has not
shown that the Navy failed to appropriately follow any of its own procedures or that it failed to
produce appropriate documentation. Further, in all three of the cases cited by Mr. Hassay, there
was a particular, documented in-service incident which led to the service member receiving
medical treatment. Ferrell, 23 Cl. Ct. at 564 (active duty mobility exercise aggravated lower back
injury); Stuart I, 108 Fed. Cl. at 461 (service member injured when riding in vehicle hit by IED in
combat area); Reaves, 128 Fed. Cl. at 197 (service member failed routine test for required body
weight and was placed in ongoing, documented weight control program). Here, no such incident
took place and Mr. Hassay was not receiving ongoing medical treatment from the Navy.
Furthermore, the Navy medical records in the administrative record show no physical inability to
perform his duties and reflect that any psychological issues were a result of personal problems, not
naval service. AR99 & AR226-227. Thus, Mr. Hassay is incorrect in his assertion that the board
drew a negative inference from a lack of evidence. Instead, the board determined that substantial
evidence supported the determination Mr. Hassay was fit for duty.
Further, the board noted that it accepted as true Mr. Hassay’s
assertions of assault and mental illness. Remand Determination at 16–17. However, accepting
these assertions as true could not alter the record evidence, which was wholly devoid of any
indication that Mr. Hassay was unable to perform his duties. Id.
The board considered other evidence concerning Mr. Hassay’s medical condition during
service. This evidence includes Mr. Hassay’s 1998 attempt to enlist in the Army, Mr. Hassay’s
2021 personal statement regarding previous suicidal thoughts or plans, and medical examinations
that occurred after Mr. Hassay left the service. Remand Determination at 14–16. After evaluating
each of these events and accepting as true that Mr. Hassay suffered from several mental health
conditions while serving in the Navy Reserves, the board reasonably concluded that “there is no
evidence whatsoever that these conditions manifested themselves in any way during [Mr.
Hassay’s] USNR service that negatively impacted [his] health and safety or [his] ability to perform
the duties of [his] office, grade, rank, or rating.” Remand Determination at 16.