DEPARTMENT OF'THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD.S 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
RJO Docket No. 6672-15 
HAY 2 0 2016 


This is ·in reference to your application for correction. of your naval r ecord pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552 . 
.Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the ·Board f ound 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 8 April 2016. Your allegations of error and injust ice 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, t ogether 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 the Marine Corps in September 1991. After injuring your knee, you were treated but continued to experience pain result~ng in your referral to a medical board. On 7 May 1992, the medical board diagnosed you with Right Patella Tendonitis and referred you to the Physical .Evaluation Board (PEB) where you were found f i t for duty. After you requested reconsideration, on' 13 August 1992, the PEB found you unfit for continued naval service and rated your condition 0% disabling. Subsequent to your discha rge, you wore issued a service connected disability rating for you right knee by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) . You were rated 10% disabled in 1997 for impai rment of your right knee due to arthroscopy and removal of benign tumor.· The rating for the condition fluctuates through t he years but settled at 30% in 2001. 
The Board carefully considered your arguments that the mil itary failed to properly assess your.Jenee condition. You contend t hat post­discharge Magnetic Resonance Imagining (MRI) and need for surgery substantiate your claim that your condition was improperly assessed and rated by the PEB. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. Your premise for relief is that additional testing or imaging in 1992 would have revealed a tear of t he posterior horn of the meniscus and degeneration t o your lateral meniscus. The Board based their deci·sion to deny on two facts in your record. First, t he May 1992 medical board report stated that your right knee was stable and within normal l imits. Second, the MRI on your knee that reveal the tear was conducted in December 1994, almost three years aft er you s~ffered your injury and more than two years after you were discharged. Based on the first medical board report, the Board felt there was insufficient evidence to overturn the PEB decision wit hout additional evidence to show that no intervening factors were responsible for the deterioration of your knee condition. The fact a tear or tumor developed years after your injury that necessitated surgery does not mean the condition existed at the time of your discharge or that additional imaging or testing would have revealed anything different from x-ray images taken in 1992. Accordingly, the Board was unable to find an error or injusti ce warranting a correction to your r ecord and denied your application. Your request for a per sonal appearance before the Board has al so 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 t he pariel will be furnished upon request. 

It is regretted that the ci rcumstances 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. Ne·w 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 ~o 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 probabl e material error or injustice. 
Sincerely, 
s . .... .' 
Executive Director 
2