DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 

Docket No. 1658-16 
MAR 27 2017 

Dear 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the 
provisions of 10 use 1552. 

A three-member panel ofthe Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 23 February 2017. Your allegations of error and injustice were 
reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the 
proceedings ofthis 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. The Board also considered the advisory opinion 
contained in Director Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Board ltr 5220 CORB: 002.of9 
Dec 2016; a copy of which was provided to you for comment. 

A review of your record shows that you entered active duty with the Navy in October 2001. On 
3 October 2013, you were referred to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) for a back condition. 
On 14 March 2014, the informal PEB found you fit for continued active service resulting in your 
request for a formal hearing. As part of your formal hearing, you entered into a stipulation that 
the PEB would only consider your back condition for unfitness. As a result, on 20 May 2014, 
the PEB found you unfit for continued naval service due to lumbar spondylosis and rated your 
condition at 20%. You filed a Petition for Relief with Director Secretary ofthe Navy Council of 
Review Board alleging many of the same errors raised in this application but were denied relief 
on 11 September 2014. You were discharged with severance pay in accordance with your PEB 
rating on 21October2014. 

The Board carefully considered your arguments that your disability evaluation system case was 
processed in contravention of applicable regulations. You also assert that your stipulation 
agreement with the PEB was against your interest that led to an unfair hearing and revealed your 
PEB legal counsel's incompetence. You also assert that the PEB failed to consider other · 
qualifying disability conditions that were unfitting at the time ofyour discharge. Unfortunately, 
the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. In making their findings, the Board 
substantially concurred with the advisory opinion contained in Director Secretary ofthe Navy 
Council of Review Board !tr 5220 CORB: 002 of9 Dec 2016 and the rationale provided in the 
Director Secretary of the Navy Council ofReview Board ltr of 11 September 2014 that denied 
your Petition for Relief. The Board determined that you were afforded the due processes 
required by the disability regulations through the assignment of disability legal counsel and 
multiple opportunities to contest the findings ofthe medical board and PEB. Additionally, the 
Board was not convinced by your argument that it should discount the stipulation you entered 
into simply because you believe it was against your interest. You were advised by legal counsel 
prior to entering into the stipulation and voluntarily chose to do so with his advice. This led the 
Board to conclude the agreement was fairly entered into and should be binding on you. 
Therefore, the Board found that the PEB' s findings were conducted in accordance with 
applicable regulations and their findings were consistent with the stipulation. 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 ofthe panel will be furnished upon 
request. 

In regard to your request for a personal appearance, be advised that the Board regulations state 
personal appearances before the Board are not granted as a right, but only when the Board 
determines that such an appearance will serve some useful purpose. In your case, the Board 
determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the 
evidence ofthe record. 

It is regretted that the circumstances ofyour case are such that favorable action cannot be taken 
at this time. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission of 
new and material evidence. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board. 

In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption ofregularity attaches to all 
official records. Consequently, when applying for a correction ofan official naval record, the 
burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 


Executive Director