DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 1906-20 Ref: Signature Date This is in reference to your application of 19 February 2020 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 that 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 application on its merits. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 April 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. You enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve and began a period of active duty on 27 December 2005. On 20 April 2006, while in an active duty status, you were counseled regarding a foot condition (not a disability). On 20 July 2006, Commanding Officer (CO) recommended that you be discharged by reason of convenience of the government due to a physical condition (not a disability). The CO’s reccomendation cited a Medical Officer’s letter dated 12 July 2006. You were subsequently discharged from the Marine Corps on 28 July 2006, on the basis of a condition, not a disability, and received an honorable characterization of service and a reentry (RE) code of RE-4. Your record reflects 214 total active duty points. In your petition to the Board, you ask for a change to your Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214), to change your narrative reason for separation which currently reads “condition not a disability.” You provide information establishing that on 29 July 2006, Veterans Affairs (VA) assigned you a combined disability evaluation rating of 0% on the basis of bilateral plantar fasciitis; the VA changed your disability evaluation rating to 30% in 2016, and affirmed the 30% rating in December 2019. You contend that based on the VA’s finding of service-connected disability, your current narrative separation reason is incorrect. Additionally, you state that you need correction to your record to entitle you to education benefits. You currently do not qualify for education benefits, but you assert that your entire tenure in the Marine Corp was on active duty. You contend that you were not aware that you were not entitled to education benefits until you tried to apply for post 9/11 GI Bill benefits. The Board reviewed your entire application, and carefully considered your request for a change to your record to reflect a different narrative reason for separation and to entitle you to education benefits. With regard to your request for a change to your narrative separation reason to reflect a discharge on a basis of a disability (which could potentially qualify you for a disability separation or medical retirement), the Board relied on your in-service treatment records and on the available administrative separation paperwork. The Board noted your contention that the VA’s determination of a service-connected disability entitles you to a medical retirement or disability separation from the Marine Corps. However, the Board noted that the VA’s finding of a service-connected medical condition is not necessarily reflective of a qualifying medical condition or disability that entitles an individual to a disability discharge or medical retirement/discharge from the Marine Corps. The Board considered that you were evaluated by a Medical Officer on 12 July 2006, who found that you had a condition, not a disability, for which you should be processed for administrative separation. The Board determined that you did not provide evidence to establish that you merited separation under SECNAVINST 1850.4 series for a medical condition or disability. After reviewing the available administrative separation records, the Board concluded that your narrative reason for separation on the basis of a condition, not a disability was issued without error or injustice. With regard to your request for a change to your record to entitle you to education benefits, the Board noted that your record accurately reflects your periods of active duty service on your DD Form 214 and your Annual Retirement Credit Record indicates 214 days of total active duty. To qualify for Post 9/11 GI Bill (Chapter 33) benefits, your more that 90-days of active duty may establish eligibility, however your length of active duty service does not indicate that you are entitled to the maximum 36 months of benefit. The Board concluded that your record, which currently documents active duty service from December 2005 through July 2006, does not reflect an error or an injustice. The Board found that you did not provide sufficient evidence to merit a modification to your record to reflect additional service which could potentially increase your qualification for education benefits beyond those which may have been earned with your service from 27 December 2005 through 28 July 2006. The Board determined that corrective action is not warranted to either your narrative separation reason or to your record to increase qualification for education benefits. 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 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 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, 5/29/2020