DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
Docket No. 6399-15 

MAY 2 02016 

Dear 

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

Although your application was not filed in ·a timely manner, the Board found it in t he interest of justice to waive the statut e of limitations and consider your case on its merits. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 April 2016. Your allegations of error and injustice were revi ewed in a ccordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicabl e to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material consider ed by the Board 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 entered active duty with the Navy in October 1984. You were discharged at the end of your obligated active service and issued a preferred re-entry code of RE­lR. The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve a disability retirement. . You contend that you injured your foot during basic training that worsened over your career and was recognized. as a service connect ed di sability by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Unfortunat ely, the Board di sagreed with your rationale for relief. In order to qualify for a disability discharge or retirement, a service member must be unfit to perform the duties of office, grade, rank or rating because of disease or injury incurred or aggravated while entitled to basic pay. Each case is considered by relating the nature and degr ee of.physical disability of the membe r to the requirements and duties that member may reasonably be expected to perf orm in his or her office, grade , rank or rating. So the mere presence of a medical condition or specific correspondence of any manifestations thereof to an entry indicating a disability rating contained in the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities i s insufficient to warrant either a finding of unfitness for continued naval service or a specific disability rating by the PEB i n the absence of demonstrated duty performance impairment of sufficient magnitude as to render a Service member unfit for continued naval service. In you.r case, t wo factors convinced the Board you were fit for continued naval service . First, your last performance evaluation prior t o your discharge did not note any physical difficulties that may have impacted you performance. I n fact, you earned a performance trait average of 3.8 and were described as a competent worker with very few discrepancies. Second, you were issued a RE-lR re-entry code that granted you preferred reenlist ment i nto the Navy had you chosen to reenlist. In the Board's opinion,' this corroborated your last performance evaluation that also shows that your occupational performance was not impaired by a physical disability making you eligible to reenlist immediately. The fact that the VA determined you suffer from a service connected disability was not persuasive to t he Board. Eligibility for compensation and pension disability ratings by the VA is tied t o t he establishment of service connection and is mani festation-based without a requirement that unfitness for military duty be demonstrated. Accordingly, the Boar d was unable to find an error or injustice warranting a correction to your record and denied your application. 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 within 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 of ficial records. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an offi cial naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 
 
Executive Director 
2