DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD. SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
Docket No. 6502-15 
HAY 2 O 2016 



Dear 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant t o the provisions of 10 USC 1552. 
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application .on· 1 April 2016. Your al legations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary mat erial considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all mat er ial submitted in suppor t thereof, your naval record and appl icable statutes, regulations and polici es. 

A review of your record shows that you suffered a bilateral i schemic cerebellar stroke as a result of a football injury on 27 Sept ember 2012. You were hospitalized for surgery and care from 28 September 2013 through 14 October 2013. Subsequently, you were discharged from the hospital and enrolled in rehabilitation, You filed for Traumatic Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (TSGLI) for your period of hospitalization .and paid $25,000 . You also filed a TSGLI claim on 12 March 2014 due to loss of Activities of Daily Living . (ADL) for over 60 days commencing from your discharge from the hospital to 15 December 2013 . Your claim was denied and you filed a number of appeals through Commander, Navy Personnel Command and the TSGLI Appeals Board. On 9 January 2015, the TSGLI Appeals Board granted you partial relief after finding that there was sufficient evidence to support payment of $25,000 for loss of ADLs. for 30 days after your release from the hospital. However, your request for an additional $25,000 for loss of ADLs for over 60 days was denied all the way through Director, · Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards. 

The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve $25,000 in TSGLI for loss of two or more ADLs up to 15 December 2013. You contend the medical evidence and statements provided by your parents and sister support your claim fqr payment. Unfor tunately, the Board disagreed wi th your rationale for relief . Upon examinat ion of the evidence, the 'Board found that your family member statements support your claim that you received standby assistance through 15 December 2013. However, the Board was unable to find the necessary medical evidence to support a finding that your medical condition required the standby assistance through 15 December 2013. Your r ehabilitation records show that you were still experiencing dizziness on 13 November 2013 but that your visual acuity had normalized. The following week, on 21 November 2013, you completed your rehabilitation. The next medical ent:i:y of note was a 22 January 2 0-14 Neurology report that your dizziness sti ll exists but has improved significantly. Based on the evidence that you completed rehabilitation on 21 November 2013,. the Board f°elt that your medical condition no longer required standby assistance from your family members. The Board concluded that the 2014 Neurology report was insufficient evidence to support a determination that your condition was debilitating enough to require standby assi~~ance beyond 21 November 2013. Accordingly, t he 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 actio~ 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, 
. ..' . .
~ 
Exe~utive Director 
2