DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No. 4124-17 
FEB O5 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 the Board on 2 February 2017. 

A three-member panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 4 January 2018. The names and votes ofthe 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 ofyour naval record and 
applicable statutes, regulations and policies. However, after careful and conscientious 
consideration ofthe entire record, the Board detetmined that while your request does contain 
new information not previously considered by the Board, including new medical evidence and an 
affidavit, it does not warrant relief. Accordingly, your request has been denied. 

The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve payment ofTraumatic 
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance payments totaling $75,000 for loss ofat least two 
Activities ofDaily Living (ADLs) for more than 60 days due to Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). 
Unfortunately, the Board was unable to find sufficient medical evidence to support relief in your 
case. The Board reached the same conclusion as the previous panel after reviewing the new 
evidence provided with your application along with the previous evidence in your file; there is 
insufficient medical evidence to show that you required assistance in performing your claimed 
AD Ls during the period in question. In making their finding, the Board substantially concurred 
with the findings ofCommand, Navy Personnel Command and Department ofthe Navy Appeals 
Board for Traumatic Injury Protection under the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance 
program in your case. The Board found that the medical discharge notes did 
not support the medical professional' s statement from your TSGLI application that you 
required assistance to perform the claimed ADLs due to your TBI condition. While the Board 
determined, based on the new evidence considered, that you were likely symptomatic of some 
type ofcognitive disorder in due to your accident and resulting TBI, they were unable 
to find similar medical evidence to support a finding that your TBI symptoms prevented you 
from performing ADLs with required assistance upon your release from the hospital in  .

They were unable to form a nexus between your in symptoms and your health condition 
due to the length oftime that had lapsed. Regarding the affidavits describing 
your post-discharge state ofhealth and care received, the Board found them helpful in 
determining the amount ofADL assistance provided to you after your release from the hospital 
but did not find it useful in explaining why there was a discrepancy between the ADL assistance 
you were provided and what the hospital determined was necessary. The Board was also puzzled 
why the medical evidence provided no recommendations for follow-on appointments or 
rehabilitation services if you were if it was required after your release. Further, the Board could 
not find evidence to explain why there were no additional records of treatment ifyou were in 
such a poor state ofhealth after your discharge from the hospital. In the end, because ofthe 
discrepancies noted, the Board felt evidence the contemporaneous medical evidence from 
was more probative on the state of your health and the medical records did not support a finding 
that you required assistance to perform the claimed AD Ls. 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 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 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 of an official naval record, the burden is on the 
applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 

Executive Director