DEPARTMENT OF THE.NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
Docket No. 6950-15 
HAY 2 0 2016 


This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 use 1552. 
Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found 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 appl ication on 8 April 2016. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administr a tive regulations and procedures applicable to t he 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 entered active duty with the Navy in March 2001. You were later admi tted for medical treatment for syncopal spells and loss of feeling and motor sensation in your lower extremities. On 2 April 2002, a medical board diagnosed you with Conversion Disorder and referred you to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). You were found unfit for continued naval service by the PEB on 8 August 2002 for Conversion disorder and rated 10% disabled. As a result of your unfitness for continued naval service and disability rating, you were discharged from the Navy on 21 January 2003. Subsequent to your discharge, the Depart ment of Veterans Affairs (VA) rated you for a number of service connected disabilities including hyperthyroidism, left shoulder bursitis, left plantar fasciitis, left post adrenalectomy scar, and conversion disorder. Those service connect~d VA disability ratings combined to total 60%. 

The Board carefully considered your argument s that you deserve a disability retirement. You cont end t hat the PEB's rating was an error since the VA's rating of your service connectea disabilities is significantly higher. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale f or relief. SECNAVINST 1850.4E provides t he standard to be used in making determinations of physical disability as a basis for retirement or separation. 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 t he requirements and duties that member may r easonably be expected to perform in his or her office, grade, rank or rating. so the mere presence of a medical condition or specific correspondence of any m~nifestations thereof to an entry indicating a disability rating contained in the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities is insufficient to' warrant either a finding of unfitness for continued naval service or a specific disability rating by the PEB in the absence of demonstrated duty performance impairment of sufficient magnitude as to render a Service member unfit for conti nued naval service . By contrast, eligibility for compensation and pension disability ratings by the VA is tied to the establishment or service connection and is manifestation-based without a requirement that unfitness for military duty be demonstrated. In your case, the PEB found you unfit for Conversion.disorder only. There was no evidence in your record to show that you were unfit for the two disability conditions that comprise the 60% VA rating; hyperthyroidism and left 
shoulder bursitis. Without evidence that shows that those two conditions created an occupational impairment serious enough t o prevent you from performing as a Sailor, the Board determined insuffi cient evidence exists t o overturn t he decision of the PEB. Accordingly, the Board was unable to find an error or injustice warrant ing a correction to your record and denied your application. Your request for a personal appearance before the Board has also 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 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 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, 

Executive Director 
2