Dear ,  
 
This letter is in reference to your reconsideration request.  You previously petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) and were advised that your application had been denied.  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 relevant portions of your naval record and your application, 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, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 August 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.  Additionally, the Board considered the advisory opinions contained in Psychiatric Advisor CORB letter 1910 CORB: 002 of 9 June 2020 and Director CORB letter 1910 CORB: 001 of 22 June 2020 along with your response to the opinions. 
 
The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve to be placed on the disability retirement list based on your bilateral knee condition and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  You argue that the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) erroneously rated your bilateral knee condition and failed to find you unfit despite your PTSD.  Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief.  In making their findings, the Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinions in your case.  Specifically, the Board concluded your bilateral knee condition was properly rated based on your documented symptoms at the time of your discharge and insufficient evidence of an occupational impairment related to a mental health condition exists to find you were unfit due to PTSD. 
 
First, the Board concluded no error exists with the PEB assigned rating for your bilateral knee condition.  As documented in the advisory opinion, a medical examination conducted prior to your PEB review shows that your leg ligaments were intact and you had a normal ranges of motion.  In addition, x-rays were unremarkable indicating normal functioning despite your symptoms.  This led the Board to conclude your bilateral knee condition was properly rated by the PEB at 10% based on minimal impairment caused by your condition.   
 
Second, the Board found insufficient evidence of an occupational impairment related to PTSD to support a finding that you were unfit due to a mental health condition.  In order to find a service member unfit for continued naval service, there must be evidence that shows the member is unable to perform the duties of their office, grade, rank or rating as a result a qualifying disability condition.  You assert that you were symptomatic for PTSD at the time of your discharge and provided witness statements to support your post-discharge diagnosis.  The Board found no evidence of mental health treatment while you were on active duty or evidence that you were unable to perform your duties as a result of a mental health condition.  In particular, despite your arguments of discrimination and mistreatment by your command, the Board noted you were promoted to E-4 during this period of alleged discrimination.  In the Board’s opinion, this directly contradicts your allegations that you suffered professionally as a result of overt discrimination by your chain of command or that you were unable to perform your military duties as a result of PTSD.  While it is true that you were punished for an unauthorized absence, when balanced against evidence of your advancement in paygrade, the Board found this insufficient evidence of an occupational impairment.  The Board considered the fact that misconduct could be an indicator of an impairment due to a mental health condition.  However, they concluded a 2-hour unauthorized absence was insufficient, by itself, to determine it was caused by a mental health condition and that mental health condition prevented you from performing your military duties.  Therefore, the Board agreed with the advisory opinion’s conclusion that the evidence in your case does not support a finding of unfitness due to PTSD.  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 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.