DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TRG
Docket No: 2015-03
27 August 2003

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 19 August 2003. 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.

You enlisted in the Navy on 12 November 1996 at age 22. You then served in an excellent manner for over two years. However, in the performance evaluation for the period 16 June1999 to 15 March 2000, you were assigned an adverse mark of 1.0 in the category of personal job accomplishment/initiative. The individual trait average (ITA)is a marginal 2.71 and you were not recommended for promotion or retention in the Navy. The evaluation comments state, in part, as follows:

Professional performance, productivity and ability to complete assigned tasks in a timely fashion severely hindered by chronic inability to deploy aboard ship due to self-perceived medical condition affecting her motor skills and causing profound weakness in the lower extremities. Despite an exhaustive battery of physiological and psychological tests performed over a 3 month period .... (including 9 days of inpatient testing), the Naval Medical establishment detected no known physical ailment and verified her “fit for full duty.” Onset of ailment twice coincided with arrival aboard ship the evening prior to getting underway for

FAQ dets. On both occasions, she was ambulanced off CVN-75 to NAVHOSP Portsmouth      Command is not implying that (she) is a malingerer, but the likelihood that this mysterious ailment will again manifest itself renders her not worldwide deployable and unfit for arduous sea duty. ...

You stated in your rebuttal, in part, as follows:

...	I would like to place emphasis on the fact that at no time was I attempting to malinger. I take my job very seriously, and have tried to perform my duties to the best of my abilities, despite my physical limitations.

In his endorsement to your rebuttal, the commanding officer stated, in part, as follows:

...	(Her) disdain and lack of confidence in modern Naval Medicine is unfounded, especially in view of the extraordinary lengths they went to in trying to detect a physical ailment.

...	(Her) knowledge of the AZ rating is more than satisfactory. Her execution of her duties was also satisfactory during those times when she was not experiencing his mysterious syndrome. Since the Command .... cannot predict the next onset of this syndrome, she is effectively unable to deploy with the squadron for fear it will crop up at sea and endanger her safety aboard ship. Accordingly, she is not recommended for retention.

The next evaluation for the period 16 March to 10 November 2000 is also adverse in that you were not recommended for promotion or retention in the Navy. The ITA was a marginal 2.57. The evaluation states that your performance of duty had been excellent but that your inability to deploy “had seriously impacted her value to the United States Naval Service.” You were released from active duty on 11 November 2000 with your service characterized as honorable. At that time, you were not recommended for reenlistment and were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.

You state in your application, in effect, that your performance of duty was excellent and your undiagnosed medical condition should not result in the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code.

The Board concluded that your inability to deploy, based on an undiagnosed medical condition, as documented in two consecutive adverse performance evaluations, was sufficient to support the

2
assignment of the RE-4 reenlistment code. 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.

3