Docket No. 5690-20
Ref: Signature Date

Dear    ,  
 
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Section 1552 of Title 10, United States Code.  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 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 28 January 2021.  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 opinions contained in Senior Medical Advisor CORB letter 1910 CORB: 002 of 20 November 2020 and Director CORB letter 1910 CORB: 001 of 16 December 2020 along with your response to the opinions. 
 
A review of your record shows that you entered active duty with the Navy in September 2009 and served as a Hospital Corpsman.  You deployed to Afghanistan from September 2010 until September 2011 and were exposed to several concussive events during your deployment.  Upon returning from Afghanistan, you were diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder.  However, you were deemed fit for full duty and continued to perform your duties while receiving treatment.  On 18 March 2016, a medical board referred you to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) for Chronic PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder in remission.  Your non-medical assessment stated you were performing duties in your rate but was not world-wide assignable.  On 22 July 2016, the PEB found you fit for active duty by relying on your performance leading up to your referral to the PEB.  After you accepted the PEB findings, you were seen by mental health in January 2017 which documented that you were still suffering from mild PTSD symptoms.  You were discharged at the end of your obligated active service with eligibility for reenlistment.  Post-discharge, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) assigned you a 80% disability rating for PTSD and Traumatic Brain Injury.    
 
The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve to be placed on the disability retirement list.  You assert that the PEB erroneously found you fit and did not consider your decline in performance prior to your discharge along with the loss of an early promotion recommendation.  Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief.  In making their findings, the Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinions 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 agreed with the advisory opinions assessments that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that you were unable to perform the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating due to your PTSD condition.  A review of your performance record shows that you were assigned a 4.14 trait average and early promote recommendation in the performance evaluation ending on 15 March 2016.  This was the evaluation relied upon by the PEB in concluding that you were capable of performing the duties of your rate and paygrade.  However, you argue that your subsequent performance evaluation ending on 15 March 2017 substantiates that you were unfit since your performance declined and your promotion recommendation was lowered from “Early Promote” to “Must Promote.”  The Board did not find this argument persuasive since your documented performance as of 15 March 2017, while lower than your previous performance marks and promotion recommendations, was significantly higher than fleet standards for your paygrade and rate.  You earned a 3.86 trait average and a “Must Promote” recommendation on your 15 March 2017 performance evaluation.  Both of these marks document that you were performing the duties of your rate and paygrade extremely well.  The Board concluded the standard for unfitness is not whether your performance declined from one period to the next, it was whether you could perform the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating despite the existence of disability symptoms.  After reviewing your superior performance record up to the date of your discharge from the Navy, the Board concluded you were able to do so.  Additionally, the Board concluded your VA rating was not probative on the issue of unfitness 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.  So while the Board empathizes with your PTSD condition, they felt compensation and treatment for your disability condition 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.   
 
The Board determined that your personal appearance, with or without counsel, would not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 

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,