DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
Docket No. 6722-15 
HAY 2 0 2016 



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 application on 15 April 2016. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulati ons and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board: Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together wi th all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 
A· review of your record shows that you entered active duty with the Marine Corps in November 2005. on 7 May 2013, non-judicial punishment was imposed on you resulting in your reduction in paygrade to E-4 and eventual discharge for high year tenure. You were medically cl.eared for separation on 5 November 2013 and discharged on 15 November 2013 after completing approximately eight years of service. In November 2014, you petitioned this Board for a change in the narrative reason for your discharge and full separation pay. This was granted resulting in your narrative reason for discharge to be changed to end of obligated active service. 

The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve a disability retirement . You contend that your Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) combined disability rating of 80~ warrants a military disability retirement. Unfortunately, the ·Board disagreed with your rationale for relief . SECNAVINST 1850.4E provides the standard to be used in making determinations of physical di sability as a basis for retirement or separat ion. A service member must be unfit to perform the duties of office, grade, rank or rating because of disease or injury incurred or aggravated while entitled 'to basic pay. Each case is considered by relating the nature and degree of physical disability of the member to the requirements and duti es that member may reasonably be expected to perform in his or her office, grade, rank or rating. So the mere presence of a medical condition or spec1r1c ! icorrespondence of any manifestations thereof t o an entry indicating a disability rating contained in the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities I !i s insufficient t o warrant either a finding of unfitness for continued naval service or a specific disability rating by the PEB in t he absence of demonstrated duty perfor mance impairment of sufficient magnitude as to render a Service member unfit for continued naval service. By contrast , eligibility for compensati on and pension disability ratings by t he VA is tied to the establishment of service connection and is manifestation-based without a requir ement that unfitness for military duty be demonstrated. In your case, t he Board was Uhable to find evidence i n your record that you were unfit due to the service connected disabilities rated by the VA. Specifically, the Board examined your performance prior to your last fitness report, which was adverse because of your misconduct, and discovered that you were recommended for promotion and retention in the Marine Corps. There was no evidence your performance was negatively i mpacted by any physical disabilities. So the fact t he VA determined you suffer from di sabilities that may diminish your capacity to perform in the civilian world was determined not to be probative on the issue of fitness for duty wi thout corroborating evidence. Accordingly, the Board was unable to fi nd 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 previ ously considered by the Board prior to making i ts decision in this case. In this regard, i t is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all offici al 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