DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Dear , 

This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the 
provisions oflO U.S.C. §1552. 

Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of 
justice to waive the statute oflimitations and consider your case on its merits. A three-member 
panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your 
application on 14 December 2017. 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 of your application, together with all 
material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval record and applicable 
statutes, regulations and policies. 

A review ofyour record shows that you entered active duty with the Navy in July 1999 after a 
briefperiod with the Army in 1998. On 21June2007, you were placed on limited duty for 
plantar fasciitis, shin splints, and a foot strain that was incurred during a training period due to 
overuse. This led to a finding that you were not worldwide deployable on 9 August 2007 and 
recommendation for administrative separation. You were removed from limited duty on 12 
December 2007 and discharged on 11 January 2008 for condition not a disability. Subsequent to 
your discharge, the Department of Veterans Affairs rated your bilateral flat feet with plantar 
fasciitis at 30%. 

The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve a change to your narrative 
reason for separation to disability. You assert that you were improperly discharged for condition 
not a disability as evidenced by the VA's determination that your bilateral flat feet condition was 
service connected and disabling. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for 
relief. First, the Board could not find sufficient evidence to support a finding that you were unfit 
for continued naval service due to your feet or any other disability condition. Your 11 January 
2008 performance evaluation showed you earned a 3.0 trait average with positive comments and 
early promotion recommendation. The Board could not find any evidence in your performance 
record that showed you were unable to perform the duties ofyour office, grade, rank or rating 
because of your feet. Without evidence of an occupational impairment, the Board felt there was 
insufficient evidence to overturn the decision of the Navy. Second, Title 10, United States Code, 
Section 1201 requires that a disability condition be permanent and stable to be considered a 
qualifying disability for military disability benefits. The Board concluded there was insufficient 
evidence to support a finding that your disability conditions associated with your feet and shins 
were permanent and stable. They relied upon the medical determination by the Navy not to refer 
your conditions to the Physical Evaluation Board as evidence that your medical conditions were 
not qualifying disabilities. Additionally, the fact you previously suffered from pes planus 
symptoms that led to your discharge from the Army was persuasive evidence that your condition 
was not permanent and stable since you were able to recover from that episode and successfully 
serve in the Navy from 1999 until 2008. The fact you were administratively separated for not 
being worldwide deployable before you had an opportunity to recover from your conditions did 
not convince the Board your medical conditions amounted to a permanent and stable medical 
condition. Accordingly, the Board was unable to find an error or injustice warranting a 
correction to your record and denied your application. 

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 of probable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 


Executive Director