DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
Do~ket No. 7599-15 
HAY 2 0 2016 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your paval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 use 1552. Your case was reconsidered in accordance with procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Secretary of the Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). You were first denied relief by this Board on 26 June 1986. Subsequently, you've been denied reconsideration by this Board on two additional occasions on 13 Noverriber 1992 and 16 March 2000. In addition, you have been denied reconsideration by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affair s) on several occasions. 

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 wi th administrative i;-egulations 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. · However, after careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board determined that it does not warrant relief. Accordingly, your application, arid your request for a personal appearance before the Board have been denied . The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. 

The Board car efully considered your arguments of err or and injustice related to the medical board's finding that your bi-lateral pes planus condition existed prior to yo~ entry. In making their decision, the Board substantially concurred with the two advisory opinions provided by the Physical Evaluation Board on 20 February 1986 and in 1988 that you were correctly diagnosed and that your condition pre-existed your entry into the Marine Corps . . Regarding your allegation that you were not provided a disability counselor in violation of the applicable regulations, the Board could not find evidence to support your claim. What the Boar d discovered was that there was no evi dence in your record on the issue. Therefore the Board applied t he presumption of regularity of record in the absence of evidence to support your allegation. The Board relies on a presumption of_regularity to support t he official actions of Depar tment of Navy personnel and, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, will presume.that they have properly discharged their offici al duties. However, the Board saw that you acknowledged the findings of the medical board and all your rights regarding the disability evaluation process on 25 and 26 November 1980. In the Board's opinion, this was sufficient evidence to support a finding that you were afforded your due process rights prior to discharge. The Board also considered the new medical evidence you provided. In reviewing the evidence, the Board concluded that the opinions contained in your new evi dence are substantially the same as previously provided evidence, i.e. your pes planus condition was incurred in the performance of active duty and you were misdiagnosed. The Board was again not convinced with this argument. As pointed out in the 1988 PEB advisory opinion, pes planus is a heredity developmental condition that is not the result of military service. The fact you were not diagnosed with t he condition on your entry physical is not dispositive on the question of whether you possessed the condition upon entry since mild cases of pes planus are often not discl osed on entry physicals and become symptomatic after the commencement of traini~g. Similarly, the Board was not convinced with the 2016 diagnosis of a catastrophic rupture of your plantar fascia in 1980 since there is no medical evidence from 1980 to support such a diagnosis. You wer e diagnosed with chronic plantar fasciitis but there was no evidence to suggest that your plantar fascia had ruptured.or was unfitting for continued naval service. These factors 
led the Board to det'ermine no error or injustice exists in your case. 

It is regrettable that the circumstances of your case are such that the Board will not process any additional reviews and this matter is considered a final action. However, if you wish to continue to seek relief you will need to present your concer ns to a federal court of appropriate jurisdiction. 
Sincerely, 

Executive Director