DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No. 2171-16 

JAN 17 2017 

Dear , 

This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the 
provisions of I 0 USC 1552. 

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 1O November 2016. Your allegations oferror 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. 

A review ofyour record shows you enlisted in the Navy Reserve in August 2000. During your 
career, you deployed to Iraq from 31December2009 through 30 Jul 2010. In October 2011, you 
were diagnosed with synovial sarcoma in your left thigh which required surgery in December 
2011. By 2013, your physician opined that you were unable to continue your naval career due to 
residual effects caused by the surgery in 2011. You requested Line of Duty benefits that was 
denied by Navy Personnel Command on 7 November 2013 and were later deemed not qualified 
for retention by the Bureau ofMedicine and Surgery on 10 January 2014. In accordance with 
your rights, you requested a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) review and were found unfit for 
retention on 16 April 2015 by the informal PEB. After you requested a formal hearing, the 
formal PEB affirmed the decision of the informal PEB on 9 September 2015 and finalized your 
case on 2 December 2015. You later filed a Petition for Relief (PFR) on 15 January 2016 but 
were denied relief by Director, Secretary ofthe Navy Council ofReview Boards (CORB) based 
on the fact you failed to exercise due diligence by filing your petition within the allowable time 
limits. 

The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve to be placed on the disability 
retirement list. You assert that you suffered from disabilities incurred during your tour in Iraq. 
Unfortunately, the Board did not agree with your rationale for relief. First, as pointed out in the 
formal PEB report, there is insufficient evidence to support a causal link between the synovial 
sarcoma condition you experienced and the bum pit exposure you assert occurred during your 
deployment to Iraq in 2009-2010. In reaching their conclusion, the Board substantially 
concurred with the reasoning provided by the formal PEB in their 9 September 2015 decision. 
Since the Board failed to find that your condition was incurred or aggravated by your military 
service, they determined that you do not qualify for placement on the disability retirement list 
and were properly separated based on the finding that you were no longer physically qualified 
for continued service in the Navy Reserve. Second, regarding the issue ofwhether you were 
denied due process when your PFR was denied by Director, CORB, the Board determined you 
were afforded the due process required by regulations and failed to exercise those rights. The 
fact your two counsel were unable to file a PFR in a timely manner did not persuade the Board 
an injustice occurred since your financial dispute with your civilian counsel contributed to your 
failure to file the PFR in a timely manner and there was no evidence that you exercised due 
diligence to ensure your PFR was filed by your military counsel. 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. 

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 ofthe 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. 

Sincerely, 


Executive Director