DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
Docket No. 7696-15 

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 riot 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 with the Marine Corps in March 1978. On 11 December 1981, you were injured in a motor vehicle accident resulting in multiple injuries including a crushed clavicle and lacerated spleen that required surgery. Upon returning to your command for duty in January 1982, you attempted to change your military occupation to a field you considered better suited for your condition and extended y9ur enlistment. However, in March 1982, your extension was cancelled and you were discharged at the end of your obligated active service. Subsequent to your discharge, the Department of Veterans Affairs rated you for a number of service connected disabilities that increased in percentage to 100% 
in June 2003. 

The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve a disability discharge or retirement based on the injuries you incurred while on active duty. You contend that Marine Corps failed to properly process you for your disabilities since you were clearly unfit due to injuries suffered in December 1981. Specifically, you point to an inadequate separation physical that found you were physically qualified to separate and re-enlist in the Marine Corps. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. While it was clear to the Board you suffered serious injuries from your accident in December 1981, the Board was unable to determine whether those injuries were substantial enough to create an occupational impairment warranting a finding of unfitness for continued naval service. The Board based their decision on two factors that exist in your case. First, the Board saw that you were returned to duty on 21 January 1981. There was no evidence in your record that you were unable to perform your duties other than the 90 day medical waiver you received for the pull-up and push-up portion of the physical fitness test (PFT). Your inability to perform the test did not convince the Board you were unfit for continued naval service because inability to perform the PFT alone is insufficient evidence for referral to the disability evaluation system. Second, there was no evidence in your record to support your contention that your separation physical was not conducted in accordance with applicable regulations. The fact the physician lined out portions on your form instead of individually checking off sections or did not request certain medical records did not convince the Board the physical was defective. The Board noted that the medical provider discussed your accident and related treatments based on his notation about the pin located in your shoulder. This was persuasive evidence that the examination was not cursory as you allege. Based on the presumption of regularity of records, the Board determined you were properly examined and determined to be physically fit for separation or continued active duty. Finally, the Board determined an injustice does not exist in your case since you were eligible for reenlistment and chose not to continue your career. Despite your contention that you were returned to your old unit with a cancelled extension because you couldn't complete the PFT, all evidence in your record shows that you could have reenlisted had you chosen to do so. You argue that the separation physical was inadequate but the Board noted the alleged deficiency worked to your benefit at the time since it removed any medical restrictions on your reenlistment. In the end, you were not involuntarily discharged for medical reasons and the Board determined you made a personal choice not to reenlist in the Marine Corps. Accordingly, the Board was unable to find an error or injustice warranting 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, t he burden is on the applicant to demonstrat e the existence of probable material error or injustice. 
Sincerely, 

Executive Director