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

Docket No. 8096-19 
Ref: Signature Date 

Dear , 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552.  After careful and conscientious consideration of relevant portions of your naval record and your application, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (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, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 July 2020.  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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion contained in Director CORB letter 1910 CORB: 001 of 6 June 2020; a copy of which was previously provided to you for comment.
 
A review of your record shows that you enlisted in the Navy Reserve in February 1988 and served several periods of active duty.  Your record documents that your last period of active duty was between March 2000 and August 2000.  You were seen at    Medical Center for dizziness symptoms during August 2011 and September 2011.  Test taken during your medical visits showed elevated creatine levels but were otherwise normal.  On 9 December 2011, you were seen at    Base medical where you tested negative for a cardiac issue resulting in your return to full duty status.  That same month, Navy Personnel Command (NPC) noted that you incurred Rhabdomyolysis while in a training status but closed your Line of Duty application since you were returned to full duty.  After continuing with your career, you were placed on the retirement list effective 1 January 2014.  Medical records you submitted show that you are under care for inflammatory myopathy; a condition that was first discovered in August 2011. 

The Board carefully considered your arguments that you were unfit for continued naval service and should have been processed through the Disability Evaluation System.  You assert that NPC’s letter and your treatment for your inflammatory myopathy substantiate your unfitness.  Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief.  In making their findings, the Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion in your case.  Specifically, the Board determined the preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that your claimed disability condition was unfitting for continued naval service.
 
In order to qualify for military disability benefits through the Disability Evaluation System, a service member must be unable to perform the duties of their office, grade, rank or rating as a result of a qualifying disability condition.  In your case, as documented in the 28 December 2011 letter from NPC, the Board determined that you were diagnosed with a disability condition while in a line of duty status.  However, the Board was unable to find evidence that supported a finding that you were unable to perform the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating as a result of your disability condition.  As pointed out in the advisory opinion, after you were returned to full duty status on 9 December 2011, you performed your military duties without any evidence of an occupational impairment caused by your disability condition.  Your last performance evaluation ending on 15 September 2013 assigned you the highest possible trait average, recommended you for early promotion, and described you as a “dynamic leader and exceptional manager.”  To the 
Board, this was strong evidence that you were able to perform your military duties despite the existence of your disability condition and any associated symptoms.  The fact you continued to receive treatment for your condition the following years after your placement on the retirement list did not persuade the Board you were unfit while serving in the Navy Reserve since you were performing at the highest levels three and a half months prior to your retirement.  Accordingly, the Board found insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant a change to your record.  
Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record.
 
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 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 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,