DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
Docket No. 7600-15 
MAY 2 0 2016 


Dear 

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 application on 29 April 2016. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations 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. 

A review of your record shows that you entered active duty from the U.S. Naval Academy in May 2006. After a year of graduate education, you reported onboard your ship but were transferred off for psychiatric evaluation based on bi-polar disorder symptoms. You were diagnosed with bi-polar disorder and prescribed psychotropic medication resulting in a medical evaluation board on 31 January 2008. The medical board referred you to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) with a major depressive disorder diagnosis. However, the PEB determined your condition was not unfitting and you accepted those findings on 19 March 2008. Due to your condition, you were medically disqualified from the Submarine and Nuclear field resulting in your request to redesignate as a Human Resource Officer. Despite the strong endorsement from Commander, Naval Surface Force Atlantic 
(SURFLANT) and positive fitness report from your strong .performance since your transfer off your ship, you were not selected for redesignation and discharged on 1 March 2009. Subsequent to your discharge, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has incrementally increased your disability rating for major depressive order to 100% as of 4 March 2015. 

The Board carefully .considered your arguments that you deserve<?. disability r etirement due to your depressive disorder. Unfortunately, the Board did not agree with your rationale for relief. SECNAVINST 1850.4E provides the 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 the requirements and duties tha~ 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 specific correspondence of any manifestations thereof to an entry indicating a disability rati ng contained in the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities is insufficient to warrant either a finding of unfitness for continued naval service in the absence of demonstrated duty performance impairment of sufficient magnitude as t o render a Service .member unfit for continued naval service. In your case, the Board considered your strong work performance while assigned to SURFLANT in 2008. You were commended by SURFLANT as an exceptional officer who displayed organizational, 
leadership, and deductive reasoning skills. Additionally, you were recommended for greater responsibility as a division officer afloat and a department head. These positive performance comments from your command just prior to your discharge convinced the Board that you were performing exceptionally well despite the existence of your condition. Without evidence of an occupational impairment, the Board concluded there was insufficient evidence of unfitness for duty. Accordingly, t he Board was uncµ,le to find an error or injusti.ce warranting a correction to your recor d 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 pre.sence 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 t aken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new evidence wi thin one year from the date. of the Board's decision. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decisi on in this case. In this regard, i t 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