DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No. 7529-17 
APR 02 2018 

Dear 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pur~uant to the 
provisions of 10 use 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 15 March 2018. The names and votes ofthe members ofthe 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 ofyour naval record and applicable 
statutes, regulations and policies. 

A review of your record shows that you entered active duty with the Navy in June 1996 but were 
eventually placed on the Temporary Disability Retirement List (TDRL) in December 1999 for 
automatic atrial tachycardia. After a TDRL periodic examination revealed your condition had 
abated, you were determined to be fit for active duty and cleared for reenlistment by BUMED on 
I 0 June 2002. You returned to active duty on 31 July 2002 and served successfully until I 
October 2005 when non-judicial punishment was imposed on you for an orders violation. As a 
result, your 15 March 2006 performance evaluation trait average dropped to 2.67 from a 3 .17 on 
your previous evaluation. You were discharged on I 0 July_2006 based on a reduction in force 
with a RE-RI reentry code. 

The Board carefully considered your arguments that you were wrongfully discharged by the 
Navy since your command was in turmoil. You assert that the Department ofVeterans Affairs 
has since rated you I 00% disabled due to service connected disabilities. Unfortunately, the 
Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. First, the Board determined that it lacked 
evidence that shows you were unable to perform the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating 
due to a disability. The Board examined your two most recent performance evaluations prior to 
your discharge from the Navy and concluded that you there was sufficient evidence offitness for 
duty based on your trait averages. Your 15 June 2005 performance evaluation shows you were 
above fleet averages with a 3 .17 trait average and received a "Must Promote" recommendation 
for advancement. After you committed misconduct, your trait average dropped to reflect your 
deficiencies in professional knowledge and military bearing/character but you still received a 
2.67 trait average and recommendation for promotion. This performance related evidence and 
the fact you received a preferred reenlistment reentry code upon your discharge convinced the 
Board that insufficient evidence ofunfitness for continued naval service exists in your record. 
Second, the fact the VA may have rated you for service connected disabilities was not persuasive 
evidence ofunfitness to the Board since eligibility for compensation and pension disability 
ratings by the VA is tied to the establishment of service connection and is manifestation-based 
without a requirement that unfitness for military duty be demonstrated. As discussed earlier, the 
Board found specific evidence offitness for duty in your military record that contradicts any 
suggestion ofunfitness raised by the existence ofVA disability ratings. Accordingly, the Board 
was unable to find an error or injustice warranting a correction to your record and denied your 
application. 

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 ofrecord. 

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 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