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 12 November 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 Psychiatric Advisor CORB letter 1910 CORB: 002 of 8 September 2020 and Director CORB letter 1910 CORB: 001 of 17 September 2020; copies of which were previously provided to you for comment. 
 
A review of your record shows that you entered active duty with the Navy in January 2012.  While going through your initial training pipeline, you reported to mental health complaining of anger issues and were diagnosed with acute stress reaction in June 2012.  In June 2013, you suffered a loss of consciousness after experiencing palpitations and anxiety associated with your nuclear training.  As a result, you were diagnosed with an adjustment disorder on 26 June 2013 and recommended for removal from the nuclear field.  On 25 July 2013, you reported improvement but dissatisfaction with the Navy after being removed from the nuclear field.  You reported no impairments associated with your assigned duties with transient personnel or social/recreational activities.  As a result, you were recommended for administrative separation for condition not a disability.  You subsequently requested to be administratively separated on 26 July 2013.  A medical separation physical cleared you for discharge on 31 July 2013 and you were discharged on 8 August 2013 for condition not a disability.  Post-discharge, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) assigned you a disability rating of 50% for major depressive disorder and later increased your rating to 70% in 2017. 
 
The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve a change to your narrative reason for separation to disability based on your active duty symptoms of anxiety and a panic attack along with your post-discharge VA rating.  Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief.  In making their findings, the Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion in your case. 

In order to qualify for military disability benefits through the Disability Evaluation System with a finding of unfitness, 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.  Alternatively, a member may be found unfit if their disability represents a decided medical risk to the health or the member or to the welfare or safety of other members; or the member’s disability imposes unreasonable requirements on the military to maintain or protect the member.  In your case, the Board determined that the preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding of unfitness.   
 
First, the Board determined that your medical diagnosis of adjustment disorder was a non-compensable disability condition that did not meet the criteria for referral to the Disability Evaluation System.  Second, the Board noted that you were medically cleared for separation on 31 July 2013.  The Manual of the Medical Department Chapter 15-20 requires separation examinations and evaluations for active duty members and states “comprehensive evaluations are conducted for the purposes of ensuring that Service members have not developed any medical conditions while in receipt of base pay that might constitute a disability that should be processed by the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) and to ensure Servicemembers are physically qualified for recall to additional periods of active duty.  Thus, the standards for being physically qualified to separate are the same as those being qualified to continue active duty Service … .”  Since you were medically cleared for separation, the Board concluded you were not unfit for continued naval service at that time.  The Board also noted that you were documented to be doing better at the time of your separation physical.  Third, the Board was not persuaded of your unfitness by your VA ratings since 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.  Medical evidence documents that you were not suffering from any occupational impairments in your transient personnel duties but were recommended for administrative separation based on your dissatisfaction with the Navy and your continued symptoms of adjustment disorder.  Ultimately, the Board concluded it was your decision to request an administrative separation on 26 July 2013 that led to your discharge from the Navy.  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,