DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No. 1665-17 
MAR 12 2018 

Dear , 

This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour 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 this Board on 19 August 2015. 

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 22 February 2018. The names and votes ofthe members of the 
panel will be furnished upon request. 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, relevant portions of your naval record and 
applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Additionally, the Board considered the advisory 
opinion contained in Director CORB !tr 1910 CORB: 002 of21Nov2017; a copy of which was 
previously provided to yciu for comment. 

The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve to be placed on the disability 
retirement list. You assert that you were unfit for continued naval service at the time of your 
discharge. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. In making their 
findings, the Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion contained in Director 
CORB ltr 1910 CORB: 002 of21Nov2017. Specifically, the Board found that there was 
insufficient medical evidence to support a finding that you were unfit for continued naval service 
at the time ofyour discharge. SECNA VINST l 850.4E provides the standard to be used in 
making determinations ofphysical disability as a basis for retirement or separation. A service 
member must be unfit to perform the duties of office, grade, rank or rating because of-disease or 
injury incurred or aggravated while entitled to basic pay. In your case, the 30 July 2008 medical 
examination was normal despite your complaints ofback pain and no duty limitations were 
imposed upon your release. The 5 August 2008 medical report shows that the MRI results 
indicated only mild changes in your lumbar spine and you were medically cleared to separate 
from the Marine Corps. In the Board's opinion, these two medical reports do not support a 
finding that you were unable to perform the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating at the time 
ofyour discharge on 20 September 2008. Your arguments that your performance declined due to 
your back condition was not persuasive evidence to the Board since a decline in performance 
does not equate to a finding that you are unable to perform your duties. While there appears to 
be evidence that you were symptomatic ofback pain prior to your discharge, the Board 
concluded, based on the aforementioned medical evidence, that the condition did not create a 
sufficient occupational impairment to warrant a finding ofunfit for continued naval service. 
Accordingly, the Board determined no error or injustice exists in your case. 

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 of record. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your reconsideration petition are such that favorable 
action cannot be taken again. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the 
submission ofnew and material evidence. New evidence is evidence not previously considered 
by the Board. In the absence of sufficient new and.material evidence for reconsideration, the 
decision ofthe Board is final, and your only recourse would be to seek relief, at no cost to the 
Board, from a court of appropriate jurisdiction. 

It is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity 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