finding that “[t]he Board is ultimately responsible for weighing the probative value of evidence [of insanity]”
How later courts described this case
- finding that “[t]he Board is ultimately responsible for weighing the probative value of evidence [of insanity]”
- noting that offenses that preclude the performance of military duties, such as unauthorized absence and failure to go to the appointed place of duty, are by definition not minor offenses
- “Whether the Secretary or Board has properly interpreted a law or regulations is a matter which this Court reviews de novo.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HOLDAWAY, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur except for that portion of the opinion remanding for assessment of the post-service psychiatric report. In the absence of any plausible expert evidence that opines that the offenses committed in the service were a product of the alleged mental condition (and thus would have been a defense to those crimes at the military disciplinary proceedings), then the failure to consider such evidence would be, at the most, harmless error. Insofar as I know, one who has pyromania cannot successfully assert such a condition as a defense to the offenses of drunk and disorderly conduct, use of a controlled substance, and absence without leave.