DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~51OO

		JRE
										Docket No. 06153-05 
										10 October 2006

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 28 September 2006. 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 a pre-enlistment physical examination on 23 June 2001 and were found qualified for enlistment, notwithstanding the fact that you had bilateral pes planus (flat feet). You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 18 June 2002. On 30 October 2002, you reported a two and one-half month history of bilateral foot pain. There is no indication in the available records that you sustained any significant traumatic injuries to your feet. On 4 December 2002, a physician’s assistant recommended that you be administratively discharged because of symptomatic pes planus and associated plantar fasciitis. You were discharged from the Marine Corps with an uncharacterjzed entry level separation on 17 January 2003, by reason of a condition, not a disability, that interfered with your performance of duty. On 9 June 2004, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded you a 50% rating for bilateral pes planus with plantar fasciltis, effective 18 January 2003. On 22 August 2005, the VA added a 10% rating for exercise induced asthma. That rating was also effective from 18 January 2003.

The Board was not persuaded that you were unfit for duty by reason of a physical disability that was incurred in or aggravated by your brief period of military service. In addition, it concluded that even if you had been considered unfit for duty because of your bilateral foot condition, you would not have been entitled to a disability rating of 30% or higher, which is the minimum rating that a service member must receive in order to qualify for disability retirement. The fact that the VA granted you service connection and a substantial disability rating for two conditions does not demonstrate that you should have been separated or retired from the Marine Corps by reason of physical disability. In this regard, the Board noted that the operations of the Department of the Navy and the VA are governed by different statutes and regulations, each department makes independent disability determinations, and that those the determinations of one department are not binding on the other.

In view of the foregoing, 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 PFEIFFER
							Executive Director