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 3 June 2020 and Director CORB letter 1910 CORB: 001 of 22 June 2020; copies of which were previously provided to you for comment. 
 
The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve to have your narrative reason for separation changed to disability, to be placed on the disability retirement list, or referred to the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) in addition to a retroactive promotion to E-7.  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 found insufficient evidence that you were unfit for continued naval service at the time of your discharge. 
 
A review of your record shows that you were diagnosed with mild degenerative joint disease in your knees along with a lateral meniscus tear in your left knee as part of a January 1996 medical board that referred you to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).  An informal records review by the PEB resulted in a finding of fit for active duty on 7 February 1996.  The PEB affirmed its findings upon reconsideration and after a formal PEB hearing conducted on 2 May 1996.  You were subsequently discharged at the end of your obligated active service on 1 June 1997 with a RE-1A reenlistment code.  Upon your discharge, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) assigned you a 20% disability rating for your knee condition and a 30% rating for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.  These ratings were increased in 1999 and you were eventually determined to be individually unemployable in 2000.  As of 2018, you possess disability ratings of 20% for left knee arthroscopic abridgement, 20% for right knee patellofemoral pain syndrome, 20% for Chronic lumbar strain with radicular pain to left leg and hip, and 100% for PTSD.  This Board previously denied your requests for disability benefits in 2002 and 2016 based on lack of evidence that you were unfit for continued naval service at the time of your discharge from the Marine Corps. 
 
As mentioned previously, the Board again concluded the preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that you were unfit for continued naval service at the time of your discharge.  As explained in the advisory opinions, your medical records document that you only presented with subtle clinical findings of lateral meniscus tear of the left knee and mild degenerative joint disease.  Your range of motion for your knees extended to 130 degrees despite a 10-year history of complaints of knee pain.  This led the Board to conclude that your bilateral knee conditions were minimally impairing and allowed you to perform your primary MOS duties despite being unable to maintain parachute qualifications.  The Board noted that special qualifications, such as parachute qualifications, cannot be the sole basis for a finding of unfitness.  So your inability to maintain parachute qualifications was considered but outweighed by medical evidence that your disability conditions were otherwise minimally impairing.  
 
Regarding your claim of PTSD, the Board also concluded insufficient evidence of unfitness existed at the time of your discharge from the Marine Corps.  There was no evidence you were diagnosed or sought mental health treatment while on active duty or that you suffered some form of occupational impairment due to a mental health condition.  As a result, the Board determined that it lacked evidence to support a finding that you were unfit for continued naval service due to your mental health condition.  While the Board considered your post-discharge PTSD diagnosis and VA rating, the Board noted that 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.  When weighing the lack of any active duty mental health diagnosis, treatment, or occupational impairment against the VA rating, the Board agreed with the advisory opinion that the evidence did not support relief. 
 
Based on these findings, the Board concluded that you were properly found fit for active duty by the PEB and a referral to the IDES is not appropriate.  Further, the Board found no basis to retroactively promote you to E-7 since you were properly discharged at the end of your obligated active service at the paygrade E-6.  While the Board empathizes with your current medical conditions, they felt compensation and treatment for your disability conditions fall outside the scope of the Department of Defense disability system and under the purview of the VA.  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.        

Sincerely,