DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 1983-18 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments (2) Neuropsychological Assessment of 12 Apr 11 w/ medical board report (3) Social Security Administration Retirement, Survivors and Disability ltr (4) Navy Operational Support Center ltr 6100 Ser N9/645 of 28 Jun 11 (5) Report of Medical Board ltr of 16 Apr 10 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected to change her line of duty status from “drilling” to “non-drilling” during the period between 14 May 2008 through 20 June 2012 when she was authorized drilling line of duty authorizations. 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 20 December 2018 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion contained in NPC (PERS-95) letter 5740 Ser 95/767 of 15 October 2018 and Petitioner’s response to the opinion. 3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice, finds as follows: a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy. b. Petitioner entered service with the Navy Reserve in September 1990 and eventually commissioned as a Supply Corps Officer in 2005. She was deployed to Afghanistan from 14 April 2007 to 22 March 2008. During her deployment, she was involved in three incidents that may have resulted in mild traumatic brain injury. She alleged to have struck her head while travelling in a truck, suffered exposure to an Improvised Explosive Device explosion that caused temporary loss of hearing, and slipped on black ice and struck her head. See enclosure (2). After completing her deployment in March 2008, she was released from active duty and placed in a “Drilling” Line of Duty status effective 14 May 2008. This allowed her to receive incapacitation pay based on her loss of civilian income. During this time, Petitioner received disability benefits from the Social Security Administration (SSA) due to her inability to work because of her cognitive and physical issues. See enclosure (3). This benefit was issued effective upon her release from active duty on 3 May 2008. There is no evidence that Petitioner performed any drills with her Reserve unit from 2008 until her eventual placement on the disability retirement list. See enclosure (4). She received three not observed fitness reports during this time period. In May 2012, Petitioner was found unfit for continued naval service by the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) for fibromyalgia. She was subsequently transferred to the Permanent Disability Retirement List by the PEB. c. Petitioner provided evidence that her command attempted to change her line of duty authorization to “non-drilling.” However, this was never accomplished. PERS 95 provided an advisory opinion indicating that Petitioner never provided evidence that she was unable to muster and work in a light duty status. Based on this finding, they imply she did not meet the requirements of SECNAVINST 1770.5, which allows Servicemembers to be placed on a non- drilling line of duty status only if they are unable to perform any military duty. d. As rebuttal evidence, Petitioner provided a 16 April 2010 medical board report that reports the various symptoms she experienced upon her return from deployment along with 18 diagnoses. The medical board report goes on to state that Petitioner “has not been gainfully employed in 2 years and she has been unable to serve in any capacity at her command functioning as a supply officer.” See enclosure (5) e. The Board concluded that an injustice exists in Petitioner’s record that requires a change. They acknowledge that Petitioner likely did not provide the required medical documentation to the Navy to support a non-drilling line of duty authorization. So they determined no error was made by the Navy in adjudicating Petitioner’s line of duty status. However, based on the SSA determination that Petitioner was unable to work upon her release from active duty, the Board felt sufficient evidence exists to show she was likely suffering from symptoms that would have prevented her from performing any duties of value to her command. In making this determination, they felt the intent of SECNAVINST 1770.5 was met by the medical evidence provided by Petitioner. Therefore, they recommended a change to her record that changes her drilling line of duty authorizations to non-drilling line of duty authorization for the periods in question. CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following corrective action. RECOMMENDATION That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected, where appropriate, to show that: Petitioner's line of duty authorizations between 14 May 2008 and 20 June 2012 be changed from "drilling" to "non-drilling." Petitioner's pay record will be reconciled based on the recommended change to her line of duty status during this period. No other relief be granted. A copy of this Report of Proceedings will be filed in Petitioner's naval record. 4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(c)) it is certified that quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter. 5. The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for review and action. Executive Director