DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUfTE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
Docket No. 6413-15 
HAY 2 0 2016 


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 the interest of justice to waive the statute 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 reviewed in accordance with admini strative 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, your naval record and applicable 
statutes, regulations and policies . 

A review of your record shows that you were discharged from the Navy on 4 April 1997 after the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) found you unfit for continued naval service due tq your Lumbosacral spondylosis and bi-lateral Patellofemoral syndrome: In November 2009, you were diagnosed with Multipl e Sclerosis by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) . After initially denying a service connection, on 9 April 2012, the VA issued you a 40% disability rating for your Multiple Sclerosis after finding evidence in your service records that showed you complained of urinary difficul t ies and a problem dragging your left leg; both symptoms of Multiple Sclerosis. 

The Board carefully considered your arguments t hat you deserve to have the Multiple ~clerosis condition added to your PEB record as an unfitting condition. You contend that the VA's service connected determination for your Multiple Sclerosis substantiates the need for a change in your record. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed·with your rationale for relief. 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 t o basic pay. Each case is 
considered by relating the nature and degree of physical disability of the member to the requirements and duties that member may reasonably be expected to perform in his or her office, grade, rank or rating. So the mere pre~ence of a medical condition or specific correspondence of any manifestations thereof to an entry indicat i ng 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 in the absence of demonstrated duty performance impairment of sufficient magnitude as to render a Service member unfit for continued naval service. By contrast, 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. In your case, the VA based their decision to grant you a service connection for Multiple .Sclerosis based on service record entries that showed the condition .manifested itself while you were on active duty. What the Board was unable to find was evidence that your urinary and dragging leg conditions were an occupational impairment while you were on active duty . Without evidence that you were unfit for continued naval service based on those two conditions, the Board felt insufficient evidence exists to change your PEB record. Accordingly, the Board was unable to f ind an error or injustice warranting a correction to your record and denied your application. The names and votes of the members ~f the panel will be furnished upon r equest. 

I t 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 official records . Consequently,, when applying for a correction of an offiGial naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. 
Sincerely, 

Executive Director 
2