DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVALRECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUl~E 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-249d 
 
Docket No. 7645-15 
MAY 2 0 2016 
 
Dear  

This is in reference to your application fo~ correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USCj1552. 

Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of justice to waiv~ the statute of limitations and consider your case on its merits. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval tecords, 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 mat~rial considered by the Board consisted of your application, togeth+r with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.  
 
A review of your record shows that you entefed active duty with the Navy in October 1995. By the year 2000, you were placed on limited duty due to migratory paresthesias in both *nees. On 8 March 2001, a medical board referred you to the Physical J?valuation Board (PEB) for your condition despite unremarkable neurological and imagining results. On 29 May 2001, the PEB found youifit to continue on active duty. On 12 June 2001, you were determined]to be unsuitable for overseas service due to your condition and f medical board addendum added the additional conditions of pes planus, plantar fasciitis, hallux valgus, hammer toes, bunions, intractable plantar keratoma to your original medical board resulting in yo~r reconsideration request to the PEB findings. However, on 11 July 2Q01, the PEB affirmed their original findings and denied your request f4r a formal hearing. You were discharged at your end of obligated ac~ive service on 29 October 2001 and issued a RE-Rl re-entry code. Sub~equent to your discharge, you were issued a service connected combineq disability rating of 40% .by the Department of Veterans Affairs. I ! The Board carefully considered your arguments that you were unfit for continued naval service prior to your disch~rge. You contend that your failure to screen for overseas duty substantiates your unfitness for service. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. 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 that member may reasonably be expected t o perform in his or her office, grade, rank or rating. In your case, the Board noted your performance evaluation from June 2000 that showed you were performing at a high level earning a performance trait average of 3.71 with an early promotion recommendation. The numerous non-medicai assessment statements you submitted that state you were unable to perform your duties because of your condition are inconsistent with your official record of. performance. In addition, the fact you di d not successfully screen for overseas duty is not a basis for a finding of unfitness. The inability to meet screening criteria for a specific assignment or administrative requirement; . i.e., deployment, overseas or sea duty assignment, does not qualify for referral to the PEB. Finally, the Board did. not find your VA disability rating probative since it was issued after your discharge from the Navy without regard· to your fitness for duty. The VA issued disability ratings are based on an evaluation of whether and how an individual's capacity to perform in the civilian world is diminished by a disability and not on their ability to perform in the military. Accordingly, 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 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 Di rector