DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No. 2027-16 
DEC 02 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 ofthe Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). You were 
previously denied relief by this Board on 10 February 2006. 

A three-member panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 3 November 2016. Your allegations oferror 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 ofthe entire record, the Board determined that while your request does contain 
new information not previously considered by the Board, it does not warrant relief. Accordingly, 
your request has been denied. The names and votes of the members ofthe panel will be furnished 
upon request. 

The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve a disability discharge or 
retirement as a result ofyour leukemia condition that existed while you were in the Inactive 
Navy Reserve. You assert that the fact you were denied reenlistment in the Navy Reserve due to 
your condition warrants a change to the narrative reason for discharge. Unfortunately, the Board 
disagreed with your rationale for relief. In doing so, they concurred with the rationale used in 
denying your previous request to this Board in 2006. Despite the existence of your condition 
while you were part ofthe Navy Reserve, there is no evidence that shows your condition was 
incurred as a result of your service. This fact is also confirmed by the Department ofVeterans 
Affairs and Board of Veterans Appeals decisions to deny a service connection for your 
condition. Absent evidence that shows your condition was a result of your service, the Board felt 
insufficient evidence exists to change your narrative reason for separation from the Navy 
Reserve. Regarding your argument that since you were denied reenlistment due to your 
condition, it warrants consideration by the disability evaluation system, the Board did not find 
your arguments persuasive. The fact you possessed a disqualifying condition for retention in the 
Navy Reserve does not equate to a finding ofunfitness for continued naval service by the 
Physical Evaluation Board. The latter requires a nexus between your physical disability and 
your military service. As discussed earlier, the Board was unable to find evidence that your 
condition was incurred while you were on active duty or in a drilling status. Accordingly, 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 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 of probable material error or injustice. 



Executive Director