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

Docket No. 335-17 

Dear


This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of l0 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 case on its merits. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 July 2017. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this 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. 

A review of your record shows that you entered active duty with the Navy in April 1955 and served until February 1977 when you were transferred to the Fleet Reserve. Throughout your Navy career, audiogram reports indicate you suffered from mild to moderate hearing loss. 
Subsequent to your retirement, two audiogram tests conducted in 1987 and 1988 indicate your hearing loss progressed. On 8 April 2014, you were denied Combat Related Special Compensation due to the fact you did not possess a Department of Veterans Affairs disability 
rating for any of the claimed disability conditions. 

The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve to be placed on the Permanent Disability Retirement List for your hearing loss. You assert that you were unfit for continued naval service prior to your retirement in 1977 but denied a retirement physical that would have substantiated your loss of hearing. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. While it was apparent to the Board that you suffered some hearing loss during your career in the Navy, the Board lacked the evidence to make a finding that your condition was so severe to cause a substantial occupational impairment to your performance of duties. Specifically, the Board relied on your 8 October 1975 audiogram report that was conducted approximately 16 months prior to your retirement that only showed mild to moderate hearing loss. Despite this loss of hearing, you were allowed to reenlist and continued to perform your duties until you Docket No. 335-17 
retired in February 1977. Absent evidence that your hearing loss significantly increased in the 16 months period prior to your retirement, the Board determined that insufficient evidence exists to support a finding that you were unfit for continued naval service prior to your retirement. The Board was not persuaded by the evidence of further hearing loss that existed more than 10 years past your retirement date since too many potential intervening factors could have contributed to your hearing loss, including the effects ofnatural aging. ln the Board's opinion, I 0 years was too distant in time to be able to reliably state that your hearing was impaired in 1977 to the same level as it was in 1987. 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 of the 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 of the 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 of your 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 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 of probable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 

Executive Director