DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
Docket No. 6687-15 
HAY 2 01016 

Dear 

Thi s is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552. 
Although your application was not filed in a t imely manner, the Board found it in t.he interest of justice t o 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 i n justice were reviewed in accordance with administrative 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 in the Navy approximately 17 years and 11 months when you were referred to a medical board for bi-lateral plantar fasciitis and placed on limited duty. After your condition did not improve, on 17 November 2000, a second medical board was convened that referred you to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) . On 6 April 2001, the PEB found you unfit for continued naval service for your bi-lateral plantar fasciitis with a combi ned 20% disability rating. On 16 April 2001, you accept the findings of the PEB and are discharged with severance pay. 

The Board carefully considered your arguments t hat you deserve to be retired because you served approximately 18 years and 9 months of active service. You contend that you should have been given an opportunity to finish out your career. . Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief . A service member shall be considered unfit for continued naval service when the evidence establishes that the member, due to physical disability, is Unable t o reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating to include duties during a remaining period of Reserve obligation. In maki ng a determination of a member's ability to perform his duties, the Navy considers whether a medical condition represents a decided medical risk to the health of the member or to the welfare of other members were t he member to. continue on active duty or i n an Active Reserve status or whether a medical condition imposes unreasonable requirements on the military to maint ain or protect the member. If a 
service member is found to meet the criteria for unfitness for duty, their disabil ity wi ll be rated and they will be either medically retired or discharged for the disability. In your case, t he Board was able to conclude t hat you were properly processed for your disability by the Navy. After a period of limited duty, your condition did not improve necessitating a second medical board to determine whether your condition allowed you to continue to serve. In the medical opinion of the second medical board, you could not do so. This opinion was agreed to by the PEB and you were found unfit for continued service . Once a service member is found unfi t for continued service due t o a disability, service r egulations direct the effective date of separat ion to be within 4-6 weeks. There are exceptions that allow the Chief of Naval Personnel to allow service members found unfit to remain on active duty but the Board determined you did not meet the required criteria for retention. Accordingly, t he Board was unable to find an error or injustice warranting a correct ion to your r ecord and denied your application. Your request for a personal appearance befor e the Board has also been denied. The Board felt it had suffi ci ent evidence to make a decision in your case and your presence was not required. The names and votes of the members of the panel wil l be furnished upon request. 

It is regretted that the cir cumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. You are enti tled to have t he 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, i t 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, t he burden is on the applicant to demons t rate the existence of probable material error or injustice. 

S.incerely, 

Execut ive Di rector