DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No. 5318-16 

JUL 03 2017 


Dear , 

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

A three-member panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 1 June 2017. 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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory 
opinion contained in Director, Secretary of the Navy Council ofReview Boards letter 5220 
CORB: 002 of 3 April 2017; a copy ofwhich was provided to you for comment. 

A review ofyour record shows you entered service with the Marine Corps Reserve in September 
1998 and served several periods of active duty including three combat tours. You were involved 
in an Improvised Explosive Device explosion that resulted in your placement on Limited Duty 
for Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), Lower Back Pain, and Bursitis in your elbow. On 23 August 
2012, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) found you unfit for continued naval service for TBI 
and Lower Back Pain with a 40% combined rating. Your Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder 
(PTSD) condition was determined to be a contributing factor to your TBI and not separately 
rated. After you accepted the findings of the PEB, you were placed on the Temporary Disability 
Retirement List on 30 December 2012. On 19 February 2015, the Department ofVeterans 
Affairs (VA) rated you for a number of service connected disability conditions to include a 100% 
disability rating for PTSD. In 2016, you underwent a periodic examination to evaluate your 
unfitting conditions. Based on the periodic examination report, the PEB placed you on the 
Permanent Disability Retirement List (PDRL) and continued your 40% disability rating. 

The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve a 100% disability rating based 
on your PTSD condition and rating assigned by the VA. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed 
with your rationale for relief. In making their finding, the Board substantially concurred with the 
advisory opinion contained in Director, Secretary ofthe Navy Council of Review Boards letter 
5220 CORB: 002 of3 April 2017. Specifically, the Board found that your ability to find 
employment, remarry, and enjoy spending time with your family was sufficient evidence to 
support a finding that your PTSD was not unfitting by itself. The Board also noted the absence 
ofa neuropsychological testing battery that could have aided in the Board's decision on whether 
your PTSD was unfitting. However, based on the existing medical evidence, the Board was 
unable to find sufficient evidence to support a finding that the PEB erroneously decided your 
case. The VA ratings were determined not to be conclusive on the issue ofunfitness since 
eligibility for compensation and pension disability ratings by the VA is tied to the establishment 
ofservice connection and is manifestation-based without a requirement that unfitness for military 
duty be demonstrated. Finally, the Board concluded that you had been afforded all the due 
process required by disability regulations prior to your placement on the PDRL. This convinced 
them that no injustice exists in your case. 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 ofthe members ofthe panel will be furnished upon request. 

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 of an official naval record, the 
burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 

Executive Director