DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAf. RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
Docket No. 6693-15 

MAY 2 o2016 



This 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 timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of justice to waive t he statute of limitati ons and consider your case on its .merits. A three-member panel of the Board f or Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your appli cati on on 8 Apri1· 2016. Your allegations of error and injustice were r evi ewed i n accordance with administrati ve regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary mater i al considered by t he 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 entered the Marine Corps on 22 June 1978 . During your initial medical screening at basic training, you informed medical personnel about a left knee condition that was the result of a pre-service car accident. A medical board was convened that diagnosed you with chondromalacia and residual left knee instability; conditions that were physically disqualifying for Marine Corps service. On 10 July 1978, you were discharged due to erroneous enlistment f or failure to meet physical st andards. 

The Board carefull y considered your arguments that you deserve a disability discharge due to the circumstances of your post-service l i fe . You contend that you needed hospitalization and suffered from homelessness. While the Board was sympathetic to your pl i ght; it could not find a basis to grant relief in your case. First, there was no evidence that your pre-service knee condition was aggravated by your brief service in t he Marine Corps. Your condi t ion was identified upon your medical screening once you entered basic training. Second, the Board did not find that your post-service circumstances were sufficiently mitigating to grant you benefits that you are not entit l ed to. Accordingly, the Board was unable to find an error or 
injustice warranting a cor~ection t o your record and denied your application. Your request for a personal appearance before the Board has also been deni€d. The Board felt it had suffi cient evidence to make· a decision in your case and your pr esence was not required. The names and votes of the members of the panel wi ll be furnished upon request. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitl ed to have the Board r econsider its decision upon submission of new evidence within one year from the date of the Board's decision. New evidence is evidence not previousl y considered by the Board prior to making i ts decision in t hjs 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 Direct