DEPARTMENT OF THE lilAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON. VA 22204-2490 
Docket No. 5630-15 

"AY 2 0101! 


This i s in reference to your application for correction of your naval 
record pursuant to the provisions of 10 use 1552. 

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 March 2016. Your allegations of error and injust ice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to t he proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by t he Boar d consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 

A review of your record shows that you were referred to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) by a medical evaluation board in October 2012 for an intervertebral disc disorder. This resulted in the PEB finding you unfit for continued naval service as the result of your back condition on 5 November 2012. After the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposed a disability rating of 20% for your back condition, you requested reconsideration of their rating but accepted the findings of the PEB . After the VA affirmed its rating decision in January 2013, you were di scharged with a 20%· disability rating in June 2013. 

The Board carefully considered your arguments that the PEB should have considered your Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) condition as a .referred condition. You contend that your counsel advised you to not include your PTSD condition as part of your PEB package. Unfortunately, the Board did not agree with your rationale for relief. Fi rst, the Board was not convinced an injustice exists in your case with regard to your counsel's recommendation. Your counsel's role is to advise you regarding your PEB case. . The fact he chose to recommend a particular course of action that~-may have negatively impacted your case does not mandate a finding of injustice. Ultimately, you were responsible for making decisions in your case after properly weighing the advice you received from your counsel. The fact you chose to heed his advice rather than pursue a finding of unfitness for PTSD was a personal choice that did not warrant a change to the PEB's decision. Second, in order to be found unfit for continued naval service there must be a demonstrated duty performance impairment of sufficient magnitude as to render a Service member unfit for continued naval service. In your case, there was a lack of evidence to substantiate a finding of performance impairment due to PTSD. Your non-medical assessment only addresses your inability to perform your duties as a result of your back condition. Your medical records indicate anxiety and mood disorder symptoms but none where considered serious enough to warrant a referral to a medical board. The Board also noted that you had an opportunity to submit rebuttal evidence to your medical board report and chose not to do so. The mere presence of a medical condition or specific correspon~ence of any manifestations t hereof to an entry indicating a disability rating contained in the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities is insufficient to warrant either a finding of unfitness for continued naval service or a specific disability rating by the PEB. So the fact you were rated 50% disabled by the VA for your PTSD condition ·was insufficient evidence since the VA issued their rating without regard to unfitness for continued naval service. VA ratings are manifestation-based without a requirement that unfitness. for military duty be demonstrated. Accordingly, the Board was unable to find an error or injustice warranting a correction to your record and denied your application. Your request for a personal appearance before the Board has also been denied. The Board felt it had sufficient evidence to make a decision in your case and your presence was not required. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. 

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 evidence ~ithin one year from the date of the Board's decision. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. 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. 
Sincereiy, 

Executive Director 
2