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

Docket No. 1494-20 
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 the entire record, 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 26 March 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.
  
A review of your record shows that you entered active-duty service with the Marine Corps in October 2007 after receiving a medical waiver for nystagmus.  You were eventually discharged on 5 December 2007 with an uncharacterized entry-level separation due to condition not a disability.
  
The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve a change to your narrative reason for separation to disability.  You assert that your eye condition that formed the basis for your discharge from the Marine Corps continued to get worse and was rated by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) as a service-connected disability condition.  Unfortunately, however, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief.  The Board concluded that the preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that your nystagmus condition qualified for military disability benefits, and that your narrative reason for separation remains appropriate.  The Board considered the fact your condition preexisted your entry into the Marine Corps and required a medical waiver in order for you to enlist.  In addition, despite your post-discharge medical provider’s opinion that your condition was aggravated by your brief period of active-duty service, the Board found no medical evidence that supports that opinion.  Based on the lack of evidence that your condition was actually service aggravated, the Board did not find your VA service connection persuasive.  Further, the Board found no evidence you were unfit for continued naval service due to your nystagmus condition—i.e., that you were unable to perform the duties of your office, grade, rank, or rating, only that your eye condition negatively impacted your ability to complete your training.  Therefore, the Board concluded that you were properly discharged for condition not a disability.  

While the Board empathizes with your current medical condition, it concluded that compensation and treatment for your preexisting disability condition falls outside the scope of the Department of Defense disability system and is, instead, under the purview of the VA. Moreover, since you were able to obtain a VA service connection for your preexisting condition, the Board concluded that this mitigated any injustice that may exist in your case. 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 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,