Dear   
 
This letter is in reference to your reconsideration request dated 13 May 2019.  You previously petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) and were advised that your application had been disapproved.  Your case was reconsidered in accordance with Board procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Sec’y of the Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004).  After careful and conscientious consideration of the 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.  
 
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 September 2019.  The names and votes of the members of the 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 of this 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.   
 
The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve disability benefits based on your exposure to .  You assert that you developed severe foot and nerve disorders as a result of your exposure which deserve a presumption of disability.  You also argue for Combat Related Special Compensation for your conditions.  Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief.  First, the Board again determined there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that your disability conditions were unfitting at the time of your discharge.  Your record does not support a finding that you were unable to perform the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating at the time of your discharge from the Navy.  Your medical record shows that you were treated for flat feet and tinea pedis in 1974 with no indication there was a duty limitation resulting from your conditions.  Second, the Board substantially agreed with the advisory opinion provided as part of your previous application that neither of your claimed conditions are presumptive for exposure.  Third, despite the fact the Department of Veterans Affairs rated you for a number of disability conditions, the Board did not find those ratings probative on the issue of unfitness for continued naval service.  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.  Further, the Board noted you were only rated for pes planus and epidermophytosis in 1975 with a combined 10% rating.  This was additional evidence to the Board that your disability conditions did not create a substantial occupational impairment at the time of your discharge.  Fourth, while the Board noted that you were diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2019, this was insufficient evidence of unfitness for continued naval service in 1975 due to the 44 years that elapsed from your discharge to your current cancer diagnosis.  Fifth, the Board concluded you are not statutory eligible for Combat Related Special Compensation since you are retired from the Navy.  Accordingly, the Board found insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant a change to your record. 
 
It is regretted that the circumstances of your reconsideration petition are such that favorable action cannot be taken.  You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission of new matters, which will require you to complete and submit a new DD Form 149.  New matters are those not previously presented to or considered by the Board.  In the absence of new matters for reconsideration, the decision of the Board is final, and your only recourse would be to seek relief, at no cost to the Board, from a court of appropriate jurisdiction. 
 
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.