DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No. 7917-16 

JUN 05 2017 

Dear

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

Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of 
justice to waive the statute of limitations and consider your application on its merits. A three
member panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 6 April 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. 

After careful and conscientious consideration ofthe entire record, the Board found that the 
evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence ofprobable material error or 
injustice. 

On 27 July 1987, you began your service in the United States Navy. On 21April1988, a 
medical report noted that you suffer from a compression deformity in the T6 vertebral body. On 
28 June 1988, a Medical Board Report (MBR) stated that the "(p]atient has a known history of a 
compression fracture at the T-6 level. Radiograms available for review show normal spinal 
studies .... Diagnoses: I. T-6 fracture, #8052, EPTE, not aggravated by service" and 
recommended separation. Furthermore, the MBR stated that the "patient appeared before the 
board in person, was informed of the findings and recommendations, and does not desire to 
submit a statement in rebuttal." On 11August1988, you were discharged by reason of"Physical 
disability existing prior to entry on active duty and established by physical evaluation board 
proceedings. Not entitled to .severance pay." 

In your petition to the BCNR, you state that there are inconsistencies in the MBR. Specifically, 
you argue: 1) the MBR states that the Radiograms available for review show normal spine 
studies but also state you have a T-6 compression fracture and 2) the MBR states that you 
appeared at the board in person, but you claim that you did not, nor were you given the 
opportunity to review the report prior to being ordered to sign. The Board concluded that there 
was insufficient evidence to demonstrate and error or injustice on your case. First, the Board 
noted that all ofyour mediciil reports documented a "known history ofT-6 compression 
fracture," which was not negated by the fact that radiograms showed normal spine studies. 
Furthermore, the medical reports clearly state that the T-6 compression fracture was a preexisting 
medical condition, which was not aggravated by your time in service. As for your second 
contention, the Board highlighted that on 28 June 1988, same day as the Medical Board, you 
signed a form acknowledging the findings ofthe Board, acknowledging that you were being 
recommended for discharge by reason ofphysical disability existing prior to entry on active duty 
and not aggravated by service, and electing not to submit a statement in rebuttal. Furthermore, 
you signed a "Certificate Relative to a Full and Fair Hearing before a Physical Evaluation 
Board" acknowledging your appearance before the medical board, the reason for separation, and 
your right to demand a hearing before a Physical Evaluation Board. You voluntarily requested to 
be administratively discharged as soon as possible and stated that you understood that you would 
be separated without disability compensation. Accordingly, your application has been denied. 
The names and votes ofthe members ofthe panel will be furnished upon request. 

Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal 
appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding ofthe issue( s) 
involved. Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and 
considered your case based on the evidence ofrecord. 

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