DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE .ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No. 7586-15 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. 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 t he Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 April 2016. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with adminis t rative 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 Marine Corps on 30 May 2007 with a medical waiver for a hallux valgus condition. In addition, you disclosed a pre-service leg injury from a go-cart accident. On 26 Jul y 2007, you were diagnosed with a pre­service degenerative left hip joint disease and avascular necrosi s. This condition was not considered a disability but the Marine Corps determined that it was prohibitive to you completing basic training. As a result, you were discharged as an entry level separation for a condition, not a disability. On 16 February 2009, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rated you for your hip condition, left knee condition, and hallux valgus of your left great toe. Based on this evidence,. you requested a change to your discharge with the Naval Discharge Review Board but were denied on 13 January 2011. The Board carefully considered your arguments t hat you deserve a disability discharge due to the conditions for which you were discharged. You contend that t he VA ratings of your disability conditions substant iates that you were eligible for a disability di scharge. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. The VA determines disability ratings based upon an evaluat ion of whether and how an individual's capacity to perform in the civilian world is diminished by a disability. This rating is i ssued upon the establishment ot·a service connection and is manifestation-based without a requirement that unfit ness f or military duty be demonstrated. In contrast, SECNAVINST 1850.4E requires service members to 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. In your case, the Marine Corps determined that your condition did not prohibit you from performing the duties of a Marine, only that it would hamper your ability to complete basic training. So the fact the VA decided to issue you a disability rating is not dispositive of the issue of whether you qualified for a disability discharge. There must also be evi dence that you were unfit for continued naval service and the Board concluded that evidence was lacking from your record. Accordi~gly, the Board was unable to find an error or injustice warranting a correction to your record and denied your application. The names and votes of t he 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 maki ng its decision in this case. I n this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all of ficial records. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the appiicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. Sincerely, Executive Director 2