DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAV/>J_ RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
Docket No . 6493-15 
l\PR 1 8 2016 
Dear 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552. 
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your applicati on on 1 Apr.il 2016 . Your a.llegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrat ive 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 th~reof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies . 

A review of your record shows that you entered active duty with the Navy i n April 2003. You initially reported knee pain in 2007 that eventually led to your referral by a medical board to the Disability Eval uation Board (PEB} for bi-lateral knee osteoarthritis, bi-lateral pl antar fascii t i s, bi-lateral pes planus, Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and Major depressive disorder. On 12 October 2012, the informal PEB finds you unfit for the bi-lateral knee condition but determined none of the other conditions were unfitting. As part of the Integrated Disability Evaluation System,· t he Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rated each of your knees 10% for a combined 20% disability rating for PEB referred conditions. In accordance with your r equest, a formal PEB hearing was conducted on 18 December 2012 to consider whether your PTSD condition was unfitting for continued naval service. The formal PEB affirmed the informal PEB decision that your PTSD condition was not unfitting. You peti tioned for relief to the Director, Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards (CORB) who also denied your request to find your PTSD condition unfitting on 3 June 2013 . 

The Board carefully considered your arguments that your PTSD condition should be added to your PEB findings as an unfitting condition. You contend that the PEB intentionally took s tatements made by your mental health provider out of context by inverting stat ements contained in her medical report that referred to your request for a letter of support to increase your PTSD disability rating. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief . First, the Board substant ially concurred with the rationale contained in t he formal PEB findings of 18 December 2012 and the CORB decision of 3 June 2013. There was no objective evidence that shows your PTSD condition impaired your ability to perform your military duties. Your PTSD symptoms were present since 2006 and you were able to perform exceptionally well despite non-compliance with mental health treatment plans. This led the Board to conclude that your PTSD symptoms did not substantially impair your ability to perform while in the Navy. The fact that the VA rated your PTSD condition 30% disabling is not dispositive of t he issue 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 ~or military duty be demonstrated. The Board also determined that the fact the formal PEB inverted the statements made by your mental health provider in her medical notes did not invalidate their findings. The footnote was meant to demonstrate that you were not necessarily suffering from PTSD symptoms as you allege and may have been attempting to manipulate physicians to gain disability benefits. In addition to 8 November 2012 statements that you claim were wrongfully quoted, there was another statement made by a different health care provider that also references possible manipulation by you. So the Board was not convinced that this inversion of the physician's notes caused them to ba taken out of context or had any bearing on any decisions to find that your PTSD condition was not unfitting. Accordingly, the Board 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 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, 

~ 
Executive Director 
2