DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 

DocketNo.411-18 
AUG 05 2018 

Dear 

This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552. After careful and conscientious consideration ofthe entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application has been denied. 

Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of 
justice to waive the statute of limitations and consider your case on its merits. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 June 2018. The names and votes ofthe members ofthe panel will be furnished upon request. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings ofthis Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 

A review of your record shows that you entered active duty with the Navy on 21 August 2012. 
Upon reporting to "A" school in October 2012, you suffered several allergy attacks that resulted in emergency room visits. On 2 November 2012, you were diagnosed with an allergy condition that existed prior to your entry into the Navy. You requested to be administratively separated for condition not a disability on 8 November 2012 which resulted in your discharge on 19 November 2012. On 18 January 2017, the Department ofVeterans Affairs (VA) rated you for bronchial asthma and allergic rhinitis at a combined 10%. 

The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve a disability discharge from the Navy. You rely on the VA's determination that your two rated conditions were service connected as evidence you were unfit for continued naval service in 2012. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. First, the Board determined there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that you were unfit for continued naval service due to your allergy condition. While you were diagnosed with environmental allergies and disqualified from being worldwide deployable, the Board found no evidence to support a finding that you were otherwise unable to perform the duties of your grade, rate, rank or rating. The Board concluded that a disqualification from being worldwide deployable does not equate to unfitness for continued naval service since a nondeployable Servicemember may still be assigned to a duty location that allows them to perform military duties. Absent evidence you were unable to perform duties 
anywhere, the Board concluded insufficient evidence exists to find you were unfit. Second, the Board noted that you requested to be administratively separated from the Navy. In the Board's opinion, this severely reduces any argument that an iajustice or error exists in your record. Third, the Board also noted that you were diagnosed with an allergy condition that preexisted your entry into the Navy. This led the Board to conclude you would not have been entitled to military disability benefits even ifyour disability condition was referred to the Physical Evaluation Board and found to be unfitting. Finally, the Board did not find the VA's service connection determination probative to your case since eligibility for compensation and pension disability ratings by the VA is tied to the establishment of service connection and is manifestation-based without a requirement that unfitness for military duty be demonstrated. 

It is regretted that the circumstances ofyour case are such that favorable action cannot be taken 
at this time. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission of 
new and material evidence. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board. 
In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption ofregularity 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 ofprobable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 


Executive Director