Docket No 3145-21 
 
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 17 June 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.   
 
A review of your record shows that you entered active duty with the Marine Corps in January 1985.  You initially reported left knee pain associated with a mass on 16 April 1985 during your attendance in the School of Infantry.  You left knee pain was diagnosed as Osgood Schlatter’s Disease on 12 August 1985 and resulted in a medical board.  The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) found you unfit for continued naval service on 10 March 1986 and assigned you a 10% rating based on their determination that your condition was aggravated by your active duty service.  However, the Physical Review Council disagreed with the PEB determination and found that your condition was not aggravated by your active duty service.  Based on this finding, your disability condition was determined not to be ratable resulting in your discharge without severance pay.  In the meantime, you were convicted for writing and uttering multiple worthless checks and sentenced to a Bad Conduct Discharge.  However, since your punitive discharge was suspended for a period of 12 months, you were discharged based on your disability case findings with an Other than Honorable characterization of service.  Your characterization of service was later upgraded to General under Honorable Conditions by the Naval Discharge Review Board on 16 May 1988 based their conclusion that the Marine Corps lacked the authority to assign you an Other than Honorable characterization of service while separating you for your disability condition. 

The Board carefully considered your arguments that your 10% disability rating for your Osgood Schlatter’s Disease should be reinstated along with a name change to your current name.  You assert that you have been fighting for changes to your record for 30 years.  Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. 
 
In reviewing the evidence in your case, the Board determined the preponderance of the evidence does not support changing your PEB findings.  The Board concurred with the Physical Review Board rationale that, more likely than not, your Osgood Schlatter’s Disease was not aggravated by your active duty service.  The Board relied on your initial report of pain from 16 April 1985 that documented the existence of a “cystic type mass to the left knee that existed since June 1984…recently noted non-radiating pain after 4 mile run with some buckling of the left knee directly after run.”  This medical documentation led the Board to conclude that the reasoning relied upon by the PEB in finding that you aggravated the injury after striking your knee on a concrete bunker on 18 May 1985 was erroneous.  Since your Osgood Schlatter’s Disease impairment appeared after routine physical exercise and did not appear to increase in excess of the natural progression of the disease, the Board agreed with the Physical Review Board determination that it was not aggravated by your active duty service.  
 
Regarding your request for a name change, the Board found insufficient evidence to support the change you request.  The Board did not find any error at the time of your discharge, or an injustice arising from disclosing your former name when using your DD Form 214 to apply for employment or various benefits.  Finally, the Board found no evidence your name was changed by a court of competent jurisdiction.  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, 
6/18/2021
Deputy Director