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

Docket No. 8307-16 
OCT 24 2017

Dear 

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

A three-member panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 28 September2017. The names and votes of the members ofthe 
panel will be furnished upon request. 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 ofyour application, together 
with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval record and 
applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory 
opinion contained in Director CORB Ltr 1900 CORB: 002 of 18 Jul 2017 and your rebuttal of 31 
August2017. 

A review ofyour record shows you entered active duty with the Navy in October 1999. During 
the years of2010-2011, you suffered from a number of physical conditions that required 
treatment including a sinus condition, pulmonary embolism, costochondritis, and degenerative 
disc disease. You were eventually referred to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) for left 
lateral epicondylitis, asthma, and migraine headaches. While awaiting your PEB, you failed 
your first Body Composition Assessment (BCA) on 20 October 2011. The PEB subsequently 
found you fit for continued active duty on 1 December 2011. On 16 October 2012, you failed 
your second BCA. After transferring to your new command in May 2013, you failed your third 
BCA triggering your administrative separation processing for weight control failure. You 
elected an administrative separation board that found sufficient evidence to support your 
administrative separation but recommended suspending your separation for six months. After 
your separation was approved by Commander, Navy Personnel Command on 20 September 2013,
you were discharged with an Honorable characterization of service due to weight control 
failure. Subsequent to your discharge, the Department ofVeterans Affairs (VA) rated you for a 
number of service connected disabilities including Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) with 
Major Depressive Disorder, lumbosacral spine degenerative disc disease, right shoulder 
impingement syndrome, migraines, right shoulder scars, asthma, left elbow epicondylitis, and 
costochondritis. 

The Board carefully considered your arguments that you were wrongfully discharged for weight 
control failure despite suffering from a number ofdisability conditions that warranted 
consideration by the PEB. Unfortunately, the Board did not agree with your rationale for relief. 
In making their findings, the Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion contained 
in Director CORB !tr 1900 CORB: 002of18 Jul 2017. First, the Board determined that you 
were properly separated for weight control failure. Your record contained three documented 
BCA failures within a four year period which supports administrative separation at the 
convenience ofthe government. Your argument that you were not provided proper notice prior 
to your last BCA failure was not persuasive to the Board since you were medically cleared for 
the Physical Fitness Assessment (PFA) and did not require acclimatization. In addition, the 
Board took into account that you did not take the PFA because you failed the BCA portion of the 
assessment. This led them to conclude that there was no injustice in requiring you to be weighed 
and measured within the 10 week notice period .. Second, the Board considered whether you 
should have been referred to a medical board and PEB for your service connected disabilities. 
After reviewing your performance record, the Board determined there was insufficient evidence 
ofunfitness for continued naval service to warrant your referral to the Disability Evaluation 
System. As pointed out in the advisory opinion, your performance during the period in question 
was stellar. A 4.14 trait average with an Early Promote recommendation convinced the Board 
that you were more than capably performing the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating. 
Your arguments raised in your rebuttal regarding your PTSD were not persuasive for the same 
reason; your active duty performance did not exhibit any evidence that your condition created an 
occupational impairment. So the fact the VA rated you for service connected conditions after 
your discharge did not convince the Board you were unfit for continued naval service. The 
Board noted that 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 considered whether an injustice 
exists in your record due to the Navy's decision to modify its physical fitness standards after 
your discharge. The Board concluded that you were properly discharged under the existing 
regulations ofwhich you were provided sufficient notice and the subsequent changes to Navy 
standards did not create an injustice. In the Board's opinion, modifying records of service 
members based on changing fitness standards would open the floodgates to countless other 
service members who were similarly processed out ofthe Navy under the old standards. The 
Board felt that ifan injustice existed for a class ofservice members affected by the BCA policy 
change, the Department ofNavy would address it with policy guidance similar to those issued 
for PTSD related misconduct and the homosexuality separations. Absent guidance that such an 
injustice was identified by the Department ofthe Navy, the Board was unable to find one to 
warrant a change to your record based simply on the BCA policy change. The fact that your 
PF A results may have been different under the new policy was speculative since you were not 
allowed to take the PF A due to your BCA failures. Accordingly, the Board was unable to find an 
error or injustice warranting a correction to your record and denied your application. 

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