DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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


Docket No. 551-16 

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 the Board on 21January2000. 

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 8 September 2016. 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. 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 ofthe members ofthe panel will be furnished 
upon request. 

The Board carefully considered your arguments that your injury was incurred in the line ofduty. 
You provided the last page ofa Board. ofVeterans Appeals order finding that you possess a 
service connected disability for a bi-lateral knee condition. Unfortunately, the Board did not 
agree with your rationale for relief. First, the Board agreed with the rationale used in denying 
your initial application on 21 January 2000. The Board did not find persuasive your argument 
that the police maniptilated the facts in your case and identified you as the driver of the vehicle 
because they thought you were going to die. In addition, the evidence you provided from the 
auto body/collision witness was not convincing since he was not an eye witness to the accident 
unlike the police officer. Second, the determination by the Board of Veterans Appeals is not 
binding on this Board since they apply different statutes, rtiles, and regulations in adjudicating 
cases. So the fact your bi-lateral knee condition was determined to be service connected is not 
dispositive on the issue ofwhether your disabilities incurred while on active duty were in the line 
of duty or not. Therefore, the Board did not find your one-page document that shows the 
decision and signature ofthe Veterans Law Judge sufficient to overturn the decision to find your 
disabilities were not incurred in the line ofduty. Accordingly, the Board determined no error or 
injustice exists in your case. 

It is regretted that the circumstances ofyour case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. 
You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission ofnew 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 of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to 
demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 


Executive Director