DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
Docket No. 8006-15 
HAY 2 0 2016 

Dear 
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 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 previously denied relief by the Board on 6 September 1996. In 
addition, you were denied relief without a hearing on four separate occasions. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 May 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. However, after careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board determined your case does not warrant relief. Accordingly, your request has been denied. 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. 

A review of your record shows that a medical board referred you to the Physical Evaluation Board (FEB) on 3 December 1993 for a number of disability conditions. On 17 February 1994, the FEB found you unfit for continued naval service with a combined 20% disability rating for patellofemoral pain and malalignment of both knees and bi-lateral impingement syndrome with a partial rotator cuff tear on right shoulder and impingement on left shoulder. On 5 May 1994, you accepted the FEB findings after consulting with counsel. You requested relief to this Board in 1995 but were denied relief on 6 September 1996 based primarily on a Secretary of the Navy, Council of Review Boards (CORE) advisory opinion that stated that the medical evidence did not support a higher disability rating for your unfitting conditions. The Board carefully considered your arguments that the medical board and PEB failed to consider a 23 June 1993 fall where you injured your shoulder. You contend that the incident is not recorded in your record. In addition, you contend that the PEB did not consider the 15 February 1994 ar throscopic shoulder surgery you Underwent since it occurred two days prior to the PEB decision. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale f or relief. First, the Board substantially concurred with the 1996 .CORB advi sory opinion. The advisory opinion was issued more t han two. years after your PEB decision and considered all available medical evidence in your record, including your 15 February 1994 shoulder surgery. Based on this review, CORB determined your PEB rating was appropriate . Second, there was insufficient evidence to support your assertion that the medical. board and PEB failed to consider an alleged fall on 23 June 1993. As you pointed out, there is no record of t he incident being reported to medical as you contend. Thi rd, the Board concluded t hat , even if the medical board and PEB failed to co'nsider some evidence, you waived your right to present rebuttal evidence when you accepted the findings of the PEB based on the advice of your counsel. The fact you now feel your counsel's advice was erroneous did not persuade the Board that an injustice or error exists in your record. The Board concl uded they were in no position to second guess the legal advice of your assigned co1.lllsel without being privy t o al l your conversations. So the fact you were afforded all the due process rights required under the regulations and chose to waive them despite your aw~reness of possible discrepancies in your record,' convinced the Board that you were treated fairly. Therefore, the Board determined no error or injustice exists in your case. 

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 r egard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records. Consequ~ntly, 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,. 

Execut i ve Director