DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY  
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS  
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001  
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490  
 
Docket No. 6560-17  
JUN 7 2018  

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of I1O USC 1552. Your case was reconsidered in accordance with procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Secretary of the Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). You were previously denied relief by the Board on 5 January 2017. After careful and conscientious consideration ofthe entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application 
has been denied. 

A three-member panel ofthe Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 May 2018. 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 of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions ofyour naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Additionally, the Board considered the advisory opinions contained in Senior Medical Advisor CORB ltr 1910 CORB: 002of10 Apr 18 and Director CORB ltr I 910 CORB: 001 of 11 Apr 2018 along with your comments to the opinion. 

The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve to be placed on the disability retirement list for a Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) suffered on 1 November 1994. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. In making their findings, the Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinions contained in Senior Medical Advisor CORB ltr 1910 CORB: 002of10 Apr 18 and Director CORB ltr 1910 CORB: 001of11Apr2018. Specifically, the Board found insufficient evidence to support a finding that you were unfit for continued naval service due to TBI. First, as discussed in the Board's decision of 5 January 2017, there was insufficient evidence you suffered a TBI when you struck your head against the wall in 1994. Despite the fact you suffered a brief loss of consciousness, the medical examination was unremarkable except for tenderness on your head where it struck the wall. This medical finding at the time convinced the Board it lacked evidence to support a find that you were improperly diagnosed in 1994. Second, even if there was evidence to support a finding of TBI in 1994, the Board concluded there was insufficient evidence to find you were unfit for continued naval service at the time ofyour discharge due to a TBI. Your record shows that you were discharged due to your adjustment disorder diagnosis based on your belief that your discharge would eradicate the symptoms that led you to attempt suicide through ingestion of amoxicillin and acetaminophen pills. There was no evidence to support a finding that symptoms related to TBI prevented you from performing the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating. Additionally, as pointed out in the advisory opinions, you were successfully employed in the Information Technology field for 20+ years after your discharge from the Navy. This was strong objective evidence to the Board that you were fully capable of performing the duties normally assigned to an E-1 in the Navy had your adjustment disorder symptoms not prevented you from continuing your basic training. Third, despite your contention that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) findings are not probative to the issue of unfitness for continued naval service, the Board did find the fact the VA failed to grant you a service connection for your TBI claim probative. This was additional evidence to support their finding that a TBI diagnosis was not supported from your 1994 incident. 

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 of the Board is final, and your only recourse would be to seek relief, at no cost to the Board, from a court ofappropriate jurisdiction. It is important to keep in mind that a presumption ofregularity 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